ALEXANDRIA, Va. —The operators of several travel websites on Dec. 6 requested institution of inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of an International Business Machines patent directed to a method of providing users with a single-sign-on in a federated computing environment (Expedia Inc., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. IPR2019-00404, PTAB).
SEATTLE — Claiming that two defendant firearm rights organizations have violated a Washington federal court’s injunction against the dissemination of 3D-printable gun plans, a group of U.S. states in a Dec. 4 motion asks the court to compel the groups to respond to discovery requests aimed at uncovering the defendants’ post-injunction actions (Washington, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 2:18-cv-01115, W.D. Wash.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Dec. 4 instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent directed to a camera lens assembly (Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. IPR2018-01140, PTAB).
BOSTON — Citing the existence of genuine disputes of material fact, a Massachusetts federal judge on Dec. 3 denied a request for partial summary judgment on the question of patent inventorship, reserving the issue for a bench trial slated to begin Jan. 2 (Egenera Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 16-11613, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204092).
PORTLAND, Maine — On Dec. 4, hours after docketing a complaint for trademark infringement, a Maine federal judge entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case, enjoining a defendant from using any trademark, logo, design or source designation online that is a copy, reproduction, colorable imitation or simulation of a plaintiff’s trademarks, trade dress and logos (Symetra Life Insurance Co. v. Guy Emerson, No. 18-492, D. Maine, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205039).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida man who appealed the standard for dismissing his copyright infringement suit against Apple Inc. saw his petition for certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court Dec. 3, leaving a judgment against the pro se litigant in tact (Thomas S. Ross v. Apple Inc., No. 18-494, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 7142).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The provider of an online media-monitoring service saw its petition for certiorari denied in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dec. 3 order list, leaving its question about the transformative use of copyrighted material in a dispute with Fox News Network LLC unanswered (TVEyes Inc. v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 18-321, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 7049).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Nov. 26 declined to compel the production of the terms of a confidential settlement between the plaintiff and co-defendant Facebook Inc. in a trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit, ruling that the other co-defendants are not entitled to an offset of lost profits and unjust enrichment damages (BladeRoom Group Limited, et al. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., No. 15-1370, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199738).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 20 amicus curiae brief supporting petitioner Rimini Street Inc., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tells the U.S. Supreme Court that an award of nontaxable costs to Oracle USA Inc. in an underlying software copyright lawsuit runs counter to copyright law and will lead to unpredictable results in future litigation (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Characterizing an adult entertainment company as a serial litigator, a District of Columbia federal judge on Nov. 16 denied the plaintiff’s motion to conduct pre-conference discovery to learn the identity of a John Doe defendant in a copyright infringement case, chiding the plaintiff for treating the court like “an ATM” in its “high-tech shakedown” (Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. John Doe, No. 1:18-cv-01425, D. D.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195580).
NEW YORK — The Nov. 19 filing of a complaint against Nazareth College in New York federal court brought the tally to 42 lawsuits filed in one week by a legally blind New York man against colleges and universities that he contends violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by operating websites that are not accessible to the visually impaired (Jason Camacho v. Nazareth College, No. 1:18-cv-10851, S.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 26 heard arguments from Apple Inc., the U.S. government and a group of iPhone owners about how to determine who has standing to sue for an alleged monopoly related to Apple’s App Store, with much of the parties’ and the justices’ attention focusing on the applicability of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper, et al., No. 17-204, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a pair of Nov. 16 reply briefs, two groups of petitioners opposing the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to repeal net neutrality raise arguments to the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals regarding the FCC’s authority to take certain actions and negative repercussions the public may face from the diminished regulation of internet service providers (ISPs) (Mozilla Corp., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 18-1051, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A trial court erred in awarding Oracle USA Inc. nontaxable costs in a copyright infringement lawsuit, a software support company argues in its Nov. 13 merits brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the guidelines of the Fee Act do not permit such an award (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A medical testing company’s questions about what constitutes a fraud on the court will not be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied its petition for certiorari Nov. 13 in a case where computer fraud was alleged against a data security firm that purportedly discovered a flaw in the medical firm’s network security (LabMD Inc. v. Tiversa Inc., No. 18-435, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 6735).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In in a Nov. 8 order in cease-and-desist proceedings, the Securities and Exchange Commission held that the operator of a cryptocurrency exchange will pay $375,000 in disgorgement and civil penalties to settle claims alleging that it developed and operated the exchange without first registering it with the SEC as required pursuant to federal securities law (In the Matter of Zachary Coburn, Release No. 34-84553, SEC).
SALT LAKE CITY — Granting a movie production company’s motion for default judgment, a Utah federal judge on Nov. 8 found that seven Doe defendants’ failure to respond to copyright infringement claims against them related to the online peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing of a motion picture merited the requested judgment; however, she reduced the requested statutory award from $10,000 to $1,500 per defendant (Bodyguard Productions Inc. v. Does 1-25, No. 2:18-cv-00026, D. Utah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192234).
SAN FRANCISCO — After seeking opinions from the United States and California on an Indian tribe’s request to rehear a finding that its online bingo operation is illegal, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 7 denied the request, leaving unanswered a legal question of first impression the tribe presented in its rehearing petition (California, et al. v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, et al., No. 17-55150, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31580).
MIAMI — Citing public interest and the general right of access to court documents, the New York Times Co. (NYT) filed a brief in Florida federal court Nov. 7 supporting its motion to intervene in a defamation suit over Buzzfeed Inc.’s reporting over the Trump campaign’s purported ties to Russia, seeking to unseal documents that the newspaper asserts are of interest internationally (Aleksej Gubarev, et al. v. Buzzfeed Inc., et al., No. 0:17-cv-60426, S.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Nov. 8 supplemental appellee brief, Facebook Inc. disputes the U.S. government’s defense of the constitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), arguing to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a recent ruling defining an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the statute does not apply to the present case because the text messages received by the plaintiff were targeted and unique (Noah Duguid v. Facebook Inc., No. 17-15320, 9th Cir.).