SAN FRANCISCO — Although agreeing with a California federal magistrate judge that copyright claims levied against Microsoft Corp. that involve conduct taking place before the filing of a 2013 patent infringement action are subject to claim preclusion, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 2 found that a plaintiff may proceed with allegations that the software giant continued to infringe its copyrights through sales taking place after the patent case was filed (Media Rights Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-16509, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13239).
SAN FRANCISCO — An online stock photo repository that asserts claims for breach of contract and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) on May 1 opposed a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Google LLC, arguing that the motion is procedurally improper and that its arguments based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution fail (Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC, et al., No. 18-01910, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — All six claims of a profile-matching patent owned by the operator of online dating websites www.match.com and www.okcupid.com should be canceled, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 30 (Bumble Trading Inc. v. Match Group LLC, No. IPR2019-1000, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 30 petition filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple Inc. asserts that a wireless security device that places a call to an emergency telephone number based upon a user’s location via Bluetooth technology was taught by prior art (Apple Inc. v. Zomm LLC, No. IPR2019-01030, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A travel booking website operator that prevailed in its appeal of a trademark registration denial by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court April 10, arguing that the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in assessing attorney fees against it in violation of the presumptions of the American Rule and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 29 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the U.S. solicitor general to express the views of the federal government on whether copyright protection extends to software interfaces (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956, U.S. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — In an April 26 holding, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed with the conclusion reached by a Virginia federal judge that an unlicensed and unattributed use of a photograph on a website promoting a film festival constitutes a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Russell Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions LLC, No. 18-1763, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12572).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Five months after preliminarily approving an $8.3 million settlement of privacy claims against Lenovo (United States) Inc. over its use of intrusive, hidden adware on computers, a California federal judge on April 24 granted final approval to the settlement (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69797).
NEW YORK — A college student who claims “severe harm” from being arrested and arraigned for crimes he did not commit sued Apple Inc. in New York federal court on April 22, seeking $1 billion in damages for negligence and other charges related to his misidentification via Apple’s Face ID technology (Ousmane Bah v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-03539, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Following a hearing for final approval of an $8.3 million settlement of privacy claims over intrusive computer adware installed by Lenovo (United States) Inc., a class of consumers submitted a supplemental brief on April 22 at the direction of a California federal judge, citing parallel cases that they contend support their proposed attorney fees rate of 30 percent of the settlement fund (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif.).
PORTLAND, Maine — Stating that his insurer’s attorney “whines like a harpy,” a pro se defendant filed a brief in Maine federal court April 12, opposing a motion for contempt by his long-term disability (LTD) provider over his relaunch of a website critical of the insurer that purportedly contained information that he was forbidden to post pursuant to a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit alleging defamation and trademark and copyright infringement (Symetra Life Insurance Co. v. Guy Raymond Emerson, No. 2:18-cv-00492, D. Maine).
NEW ORLEANS — Sexual orientation is not a protected category under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel majority found April 19, affirming a trial court’s dismissal of a woman’s claim that she was discriminated against by her employer over an anti-LGBT Facebook post because she is heterosexual (Bonnie M. O’Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions, et al., No. 18-30136, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11458).
PORTLAND, Ore. — A month after the U.S. Supreme Court found that an award of nontaxable costs for Oracle USA Inc. was not permissible under the Copyright Act, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 16 vacated and remanded that portion of the appeal in a long-running software licensing dispute, while a possible July argument is being considered for the recently briefed remaining appeal issues related to a permanent injunction and attorney fees (Oracle USA Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street Inc., et al., Nos. 16-16832, 16-16905 and 18-16554, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A per curiam panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17 found that disputes of material fact regarding the creation of multiple copies of a plaintiff’s photographs not at the direction of users should have precluded summary judgment on allegations of direct copyright infringement (BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore Inc., Nos. Nos. 16‐2825‐cv, 16‐2992‐cv, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11208).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 16 petition for inter partes review (IPR), Microsoft Corp. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a claimed digital media asset identification system and method owned by Uniloc 2017 LLC is unpatentable as obvious (Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00976, PTAB).
SAN DIEGO — A multibillion-dollar dispute in California federal court between Apple Inc. and Qualcomm Inc. over cellular chipset technology ended April 16, the second day of a trial, with a settlement between the parties, according to a docket minute entry (In re: Qualcomm Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00108, S.D. Calif.).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — With the filing of a complaint against the city of Bonita Springs, Fla., in Florida federal court on April 15, a legally blind Florida man has now initiated more than 150 lawsuits against various entities alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) for websites that he contends are not equally accessible to the visually impaired (Joel Price v. Bonita Springs, No. 2:19-cv-00233, M.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge erred in instructing jurors in a copyright infringement case that they could find willfulness if a defendant “should have known” that his acts were infringing, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 16 (Erickson Productions Inc., et al. v. Kraig Kast, No. 15-16801, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11037).
CHICAGO — A six-year-old lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) from text notifications sent by Yahoo! Inc. came to a close April 1, when the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal of a lower court’s rulings that decertified her proposed class and disposed of her claims against the internet firm (Rachel Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 19-1001, 7th Cir.).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on April 11 ruled that a provider of “online, printable and grocery” coupons has failed to plausibly state its claim for trade secret misappropriation pursuant to the Illinois Trade Secret Act (ITSA) against a competitor who is alleged to have taken coupon codes from the plaintiff’s website and provided the codes on its own website (CouponCabin Inc. v. PriceTrace LLC, No. 18-7525, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62438).