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).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Following an April 11 discovery conference, a Florida federal magistrate judge in a paperless minute entry ordered the parties in a dispute over the ownership of a multibillion dollar bitcoin cache, which belonged to a deceased bitcoin miner, to submit further briefs addressing discovery disputes related to the production of documents and other items (Ira Kleiman, et al. v. Craig Wright, No. 9:18-cv-80176, S.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — While expressing its sympathy to the family of a victim of the 2015 Paris terror attacks, Google LLC argues in an April 5 appellee brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a trial court correctly found that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes it from terror-aiding claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for the purported use of YouTube by terrorists (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 18-16700, 9th Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Citing what it calls willful behavior by two of the attorneys representing a putative class of iPhone users, Apple Inc. on April 9 asked a California federal court to sanction the counsel for quoting from documents that which were designated as confidential during discovery at a public hearing on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit alleging degraded performance in the plaintiffs’ mobile devices (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it calls “the copyright case of the decade,” Google LLC filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court April 10, arguing that a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in which the court found the copying of certain Java software interface code to be infringement conflicts with longstanding precedent and industry practices, thus meriting high court review despite the lack of a circuit split (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Claim constructions recently proposed by a patent owner are “improperly narrow” and “contravene the broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) standard, Apple Inc. asserts in an April 9 reply brief filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC, No. IPR2018-00813, PTAB).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on April 8 entered a default judgment and granted an injunction in favor of a musician and against a concert promoter on claims for trademark infringement, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action, ordering the promotor to return all domain names and social media accounts using the singer’s marks (James Todd Smith v. Guerilla Union, Inc., et al., No. 18-9902, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60309).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Contrary to a recent petition for inter partes review (IPR) by Google LLC, a patented method of providing ad hoc and password-protected digital and voice networks would not have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA), the patent owner responded April 4 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. IPR2018-01080, PTAB).
LAS VEGAS — At an April 4 hearing, a Nevada federal magistrate judge granted a motion by Oracle USA Inc. to conduct limited discovery into whether Rimini Street Inc. is complying with an injunction in a long-running software copyright infringement lawsuit (Oracle USA Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street Inc., et al., No. 2:10-cv-00106, D. Nev.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Asserting that Google LLC induces customers to use its AdWords program by misrepresenting the amount of valid clicks they will receive on their advertisements, a small business owner tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a March 29 brief that his unfair competition and false advertising claims were wrongly dismissed without proper consideration of Google’s misrepresentations and his experts’ evidence of click fraud (Gurminder Singh v. Google LLC, No. 18-17035, 9th Cir.).
SEATTLE — Microsoft Corp.’s insurer announced on April 2 that it reached a confidential settlement with an electronic memory chip supplier of its breach of contract subrogation lawsuit seeking to recover the $150 million it paid for damages that Microsoft allegedly incurred when it had to seek substitution for dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips after a jury found that the supplier did not breach its agreement with Microsoft (Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America Inc., No. 17-00467, W.D. Wash.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an April 4 petition for inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a Blackberry Ltd. patent covering an interface feature that indicates the receipt of a new message is accused of obviousness (Facebook Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., No. IPR2019-00925, PTAB).
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — A deaf civil rights group sufficiently alleged most of its claims that the websites of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are not equally accessible for hearing-impaired people, a Massachusetts federal magistrate judge ruled March 28, mostly denying the schools’ motions for judgment on the pleadings (National Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Harvard University, et al., No. 3:15-cv-30023, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52455; and National Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, No. 3:15-cv-30024, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52457).