SAN FRANCISCO — One month after a California federal judge granted preliminary approval of a settlement of nuisance and trespass claims against the creator of Pokémon GO, the plaintiff property owners on June 13 moved for final approval of the settlement, asserting that it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable” (In re Pokémon GO Nuisance Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-04300, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — Online video-filtering service VidAngel Inc. on June 17 opposed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that plaintiff movie studios filed in California federal court on day four of oral arguments in a damages trial related to copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing a split among federal appeals courts, a lack of clear guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a glut of litigation on the matter, Domino’s Pizza LLC on June 13 filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to the accessibility of websites for people with disabilities (Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Guillermo Robles, No. 18-1539, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Reversing and remanding a trial court’s dismissal of a man’s class claims against Facebook Inc. under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 13 found that he sufficiently alleged that the social network sent automated, unwanted text messages via an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) (Noah Duguid v. Facebook Inc., No. 17-15320, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17675).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 30 reply supporting its petition for certiorari over an attorney fees award granted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after a successful challenge of a trademark registration denial, Booking.com B.V. asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consolidate its case with a similar already granted petition over a fees award in a patent validity lawsuit (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge on June 7 held that a global manufacturer of semiconductor microelectronic devices has failed to demonstrate that 17 foreign underwriters “purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California,” granting the underwriters’ motion to dismiss the insured’s lawsuit seeking coverage for damaged computer-memory chips and equipment for lack of personal jurisdiction (Micron Technology, Inc., et al. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-07689, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96257).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 29 appellant brief, three partly unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) petitioners tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that various claims of a voice messaging patent are not obvious (Apple Inc., et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Nos. 2019-1151, -1179, -1203, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Affirming a lower court’s dismissal of antitrust and Lanham Act claims brought by a coalition of locksmiths, a District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 7 found that Google LLC, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. were immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) for the online publication on their respective search engines of listings for purported scam locksmith companies (Marshall’s Locksmith Service Inc., et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 18-7018, D.C. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17123).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 5 complaint in California federal court, a technology and research company in the Republic of Lithuania sued Facebook Inc. and Princeton University for purportedly misappropriating its trade secrets related to scene recognition technology and the area of virtual reality (UAB “Planner5D” v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-03132, N.D. Calif.).
OMAHA, Neb. — Concluding that Nebraska law does not impose a duty of care upon a company to protect a client from the actions of third parties, a Nebraska federal judge on June 4 granted a meat-packing company’s motion to dismiss negligence claims brought against it by a customer that was duped into paying more than $100,000 to a thief in an email phishing scheme (Prime Foods for Processing and Trading v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-00073, D. Neb., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93169).
SAN FRANCISCO — Rejecting Google LLC’s argument that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shielded it from a client’s complaint over alleged unfair search results rankings, a California federal judge on June 5 denied in part the technology firm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on unfair competition and breach of contract claims against it (Dreamstime.com LLC v. Google LLC, et al., No. 3;18-cv-01910, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a class of consumers could pursue antitrust claims against Apple Inc. related to its App Store exclusivity practices, a pair of app developers filed similar claims against the technology giant in California federal court on June 4, alleging monopolization and unfair competition by restricting the sale and development of apps through developer contracts with exorbitant fees and commissions (Donald R. Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-03074, N.D. Calif.).
NEW ORLEANS — A special master in the Taxotere hair-loss multidistrict litigation on May 29 said his in camera review of emails about an alleged request to delete Facebook comments about the chemotherapy drug and hair loss in female patients showed “no improper communications, instructions or guidance provided by counsel” and that the documents are not discoverable by defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (In Re: Taxotere [Docetaxel] Product Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2740, No. 16-md-2740, E.D. La.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 16 respondent brief, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold a petition for certiorari filed by an online travel website operator, stating that a pending high court case over parallel attorney fee issues, but in the patent context, will likely resolve the trademark-related fees issues in the present case (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
LOS ANGELES — Domino’s Pizza LLC tells a California federal court in a May 24 brief that a blind man who sued the pizza chain for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to purported website inaccessibility has not demonstrated good cause to support his motion to file an amended complaint (Guillermo Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. 2:16-cv-06599, C.D. Calif.).
TEXARKANA, Texas — Objecting to a Texas federal magistrate judge’s recommendation that their motion to transfer an antitrust lawsuit brought by an online travel agency (OTA) be denied, a group of hotel defendants filed a brief May 23, arguing that the case should be transferred to an Illinois federal court that is handling a similar consumer class action antitrust lawsuit (TravelPass Group LLC, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 5:18-cv-00153, E.D. Texas).
SAN FRANCISCO — Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court held that a class of iPhone users could sue Apple Inc. for antitrust violations related to the pricing of apps for their smartphones, a California man filed a new class complaint against the technology giant on May 23, bringing claims of monopolization under the Sherman Act (Edward Lawrence v. Apple Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02852, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Granting in part a motion to quash a subpoena to identify an anonymous poster to a Jehovah’s Witness-themed online forum, a California federal magistrate judge on May 17 ordered that the John Doe’s identity be revealed only to counsel so as to protect the poster’s free speech concerns, while still allowing a church-related organization to pursue copyright infringement claims over two of Doe’s posts (In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit Inc., No. 3:19-mc-80005, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent directed to determining a name for a file based on a function of the file contents and determining whether the file is present on a computer would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, PayPal Inc. asserts in a May 14 request for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PayPal Inc., et al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-01093, PTAB).