ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 8 preliminary response, a patent owner urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reject a petition by Apple Inc. for inter partes review (IPR) of a secure message forwarding patent (Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OY, No. IPR2019-00821, PTAB).
NEW YORK — Because President Donald J. Trump uses his Twitter account “for all manner of official purposes,” a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9 found that his decision to block certain social media users from his account due to their viewpoints violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirming a trial court’s ruling against the president (Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 18-1691, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20265).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two former employees of a plastics company have sufficiently demonstrated the need to subpoena Verizon Wireless for certain records supporting their defense against computer fraud and wiretap claims against them related to the alleged theft of company trade secrets, an Ohio federal magistrate judge ruled July 3, granting their motion for expedited discovery (Axium Plastics LLC v. Keith Templin, et al., No. 2:19-cv-02386, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111079).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In confirming the patentability of various claims of an invention covering error-correcting codes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board committed “a series of legal errors” and its finding of a lack of motivation to combine prior art references “is unsupported by substantial evidence,” Apple Inc. maintained July 1 in an appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Nos. 19-1580, -1581, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on June 28 ruled that a plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit stemming from a failed software licensing agreement has failed to sufficiently identify what trade secrets its former client is alleged to have misappropriated with particularity in making its state and federal trade secrets law claims (InteliClear LLC v. ETC Global Holdings Inc., No. 18-10342, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109827).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 2 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in three inter partes reviews (IPRs) that various claims of a Finjan computer antivirus patent are patentable, while others are not (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., Nos. 2017-2543, -2623, -2047, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19752).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California granted final approval on June 19 of a class settlement valued at approximately $25 million reached in a class lawsuit accusing a smartphone-based dating application of discriminatory age-based pricing in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., et al., No. 18-3093, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108041).
OAKLAND, Calif. — In the wake of a May ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court permitting consumers to pursue antitrust claims against Apple Inc. for alleged monopolization via its App Store, a developer of iPhone apps filed a potential class action against the tech giant in California federal court on June 28, alleging violation of the Sherman Act and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Barry Sermons v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-03796, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Assertions by Microsoft Corp. that a patent relating to image capture is not entitled to its claimed priority date of 1999 fail, the patent owner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a July 1 preliminary patent owner response (Microsoft Corp. v. Kewazinga Corp., No. IPR2019-00872, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals June 28 found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “failed to make necessary factual findings” when rejecting three patent claims relating to improved communication over the Internet (VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 18-1751, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19444).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal court in a patent infringement suit against Microsoft Corp. properly excluded one expert’s survey and another’s opinions for the plaintiff company and did not err in awarding Microsoft summary judgment of no indirect infringement, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided June 28 (Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 18-1120, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19442).
NEW YORK — Three months after oral argument was heard in President Donald J. Trump’s appeal of a ruling that his banning of individuals from his Twitter account violated their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the president on June 26 filed a letter advising the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he says supports his position that he is free to ban anyone from his personal Twitter account without it being a state action or constitutional violation (Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 18-1691, 2nd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on June 25 trimmed proposed expert testimony from both sides in a patent infringement and trade secrets misappropriation suit over a project by Google LLC to provide wireless services through the use of balloons in the stratosphere (Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 5:16-cv-3260, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106297).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A real estate photography studio tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a June 13 petition for certiorari that the circuit courts of appeal are divided on whether liability for direct copyright infringement requires a showing of volitional conduct, arguing that a website operator, such as respondent Zillow Inc., should be found liable for infringing content on its site when it has the ability to control such content (VHT Inc. v. Zillow Group Inc., et al., No. 18-1540, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 declined to consider a question over whether “used” digital music files can legally be resold under the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine, denying a petition for certiorari by digital music marketplace operator ReDigi Inc. (ReDigi Inc., et al. v. Capitol Records LLC, et al., No. 18-1430, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4296).
LOS ANGELES — On the fifth and final day of oral arguments in the liability trial for VidAngel Inc. in California federal court, a jury on June 17 found that the online video-filtering service’s infringement of the plaintiff studios’ copyrighted works was willful, awarding the studios $61,425,000 related to copyright infringement (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
DALLAS — Twitter Inc., Google LLC and Facebook Inc. on June 14 jointly filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging liability under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) for a 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, with the internet platform providers telling a Texas federal court that the plaintiffs have not established any connection between the shooter’s actions and their online services (Jesus Retana, et al. v. Twitter Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00359, N.D. Texas).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Florida federal magistrate judge on June 14 found no reason why the defendant in a dispute over the ownership of a bitcoin fortune could not produce records indicating the amount of bitcoin he had mined, granting a motion to compel such production in compliance with a previous court order but declining to issue related sanctions at present (Ira Kleiman, et al. v. Craig Wright, No. 9:18-cv-80176, S.D. Fla.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Two attorneys representing a putative class of iPhone users who sued Apple Inc. for engaging in performance throttling of certain phone models violated a discovery protective order, a California federal judge ruled June 14, finding that one attorney’s actions were likely willful, leading him to grant in part Apple’s motion for sanctions (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100322).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A federal judge in California on June 17 ruled that a technology company has failed to sufficiently show that Apple Inc. engaged in unfair competition under California common law when it allegedly infringed on the company’s patented technology and intellectual property to develop its “Emergency SOS” product for its Apple devices because the claim is preempted by federal patent law and is superseded by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) (Zomm LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 18-4969, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101029).