WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 10 petition for certiorari, an online reseller of digital music files asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the “pivotal copyright issue” of whether the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine applies in the context of lawfully purchased digital music (ReDigi Inc., et al. v. Capitol Records LLC, et al., No. 18-1430, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An online video-streaming service may proceed with its trade libel claims against a digital media service, the California Supreme Court ruled May 6, reversing lower court decisions that struck the company’s complaint under California’s strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, with the high court finding reports issued by the defendant to be “too tenuously tethered to the issues of public interest they implicate” to merit protection under the statute (FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify Inc., No. S244157, Calif. Sup., 2019 Cal. LEXIS 3042).
RICHMOND, Va. — Because a visually impaired man was not a member and was not eligible to become a member of a credit union at the time he sued it for purported website accessibility violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 13 found that he lacked standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (Keith Carroll v. Northwest Federal Credit Union, No. 18-1434, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14150).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A consumer on May 9 filed a class action against an online organic products retailer in a California court, alleging that it violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other state laws by not providing clear disclosures about its automatic renewal terms (Inez Vasquez-Cossio v. She Is Organic, LLC, No. 2019-01068651, Calif. Super, Orange Co.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A company that was responsible for the online postings of a client’s personal material was ordered May 10 to mostly comply with deposition subpoenas by an insurance company involved in a coverage dispute over the matter, with a California federal magistrate judge declining to quash the subpoenas and finding most of the insurer’s requests to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case (Pegatron Technology Service Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., No. 5:18-cv--01477, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79693).
ATLANTA — Citing a recent New York appellate court ruling in a parallel lawsuit over a Russian dossier purportedly linked to political wrongdoing surrounding the 2016 presidential election, Buzzfeed Inc. in a May 3 notice of supplemental authority tells the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that this bolsters its position that New York’s fair report privilege defeats underlying defamation claims over its online publication of the dossier (Aleksej Gubarev, et al. v. Buzzfeed Inc., et al., No. 18-15295, 11th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 5-4 opinion released May 13, a U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled that under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, a putative class of iPhone users who sued Apple Inc. for monopolization over the pricing of apps qualify as direct purchasers because of the lack of an intermediary between them and Apple and, therefore, may pursue their claims under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper, et al., No. 17-204, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3397).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations that Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. infringe a patent relating to data indexing will proceed, a California federal judge ruled May 9, lifting a stay entered in 2013 (Software Rights Archive LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 12-3970; Software Rights Archive LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 12-3972, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79674).
SAN FRANCISCO — Responding to a citation of supplemental authority filed by Google LLC, the family members of a terror attack victim that are seeking to hold the internet giant liable for aiding the terrorists argue in an April 25 filing in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the cited case adds nothing to Google’s arguments and does not defeat their claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 18-16700, 9th Cir.).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on March 25 approved an agreement in which a Colorado city will pay a resident $20,372.90 to settle his claim that he was unconstitutionally blocked from making comments critical of the city’s mayor with regard to her position on hydraulic fracturing (Clifton Willmeng v. Lafayette, Colorado, et al., No. 19-150, D. Colo.).
CINCINNATI — Three weeks after a panel affirmed a trial court’s finding that Twitter Inc., Google LLC and Facebook Inc. could not be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for the 2016 mass shooting at an Orlando, Fla., nightclub, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 8 issued its mandate memorializing the decision and declining to award costs in the matter (Earl Crosby, et al. v. Twitter Inc., et al., No. 18-1426, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11105).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on May 8 granted in part and denied in part an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage dispute arising from underlying claims that the insured used five people’s images as part of its promotions on social media without their consent or payment, finding that coverage is barred for the claims of all but one of the underlying plaintiffs (Bullseye Restaurant, Inc., et al. v. James River Insurance Company, No. 17-2996, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77701).
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court filed an order on April 10 indicating that on March 27 it agreed to answer a certified question from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a coverage dispute between Yahoo! Inc. and its commercial general liability insurer arising from claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. S253593, Calif. Sup., 2019 Cal. LEXIS 3004).
LOS ANGELES — In accord with an in-chambers order in which he trimmed the “excessive” number of motions in limine filed by the parties before a pending damages trial for online video-filtering service VidAngel Inc., a California federal judge on May 8 declined to permit the defendant to bring a sixth motion to counter a purported “unfair advantage” related to an extra expert witness provided by the plaintiff movie studios (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Finding that “numerous” questions of fact exist on whether an internet domain was registered in bad faith and whether a purportedly infringed trademark merits protection, a California federal judge on May 6 mostly denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment in a cybersquatting lawsuit (Jeffrey Dean Black v. Irving Materials Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06734, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76418).
DENVER — In a May 7 ruling, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact a jury’s finding that an appellant is liable for copyright infringement in connection with its copying of a standard collection letter and service agreement (Advanced Recovery Systems LLC, et al. v. American Agencies LLC, No. 17-4202, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13591).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent belonging to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) that claims a searchable database using natural language input recites subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, Amazon.com Inc. asserts in a May 7 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. IPR2019-01069, PTAB).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Three days after a California federal judge partly granted Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a lawsuit over the purported intentional throttling of certain iPhone and iPad models, the judge on May 6 overruled Apple’s objections to a recent order requiring it to engage in a schedule of rolling discovery (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76419).
MADISON, Wis. — A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated a trial court’s dismissal of claims against an online firearm marketplace, which a mass shooter had used to illegally purchase a gun the day before he killed his estranged wife and two others. It concluded April 30 that the website was protected from liability as a publisher of third-party information (Yasmeen Daniel v. Armslist LLC, et al., No. 2017AP344, Wis. Sup., 2019 WI 47).
SAN FRANCISCO — After initially voicing his concerns with certain customer service provisions of a proposed settlement between the creator of Pokémon GO and a putative class of property owners bringing nuisance and trespass claims against it, a California federal judge on May 2 granted preliminary approval to an amended settlement agreement that establishes methods for removing private property as possible gaming sites (In re Pokémon GO Nuisance Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-04300, N.D. Calif.).