Supreme Court Clarifies Induced Infringement Standard

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Image

Photo Credit: valuecdn.com

By Amanda Brings

Earlier this month, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., a unanimous Supreme Court clarified the standard for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court held that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a method patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) unless direct infringement has been committed under § 271(a). Under this standard, liability for induced infringement of a multi-step method patent can only attach when a single actor performs all the method steps. In so holding, the Court expressly rejected the Federal Circuit’s relaxed induced infringement standard, which did not require that a single actor perform all the method steps. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision that a defendant could be liable for induced infringement when it performed only some of the method steps and induced a third party to perform the remaining steps.

In Limelight, Akamai Technologies sued Limelight Networks for infringing its patent, which claimed a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN). Akamai operates a CDN and maintains multiple servers. Website owners contract with Akamai to deliver their websites’ content to Internet users. Akamai’s patent provides for a process known as “tagging,” wherein certain components of its customers’ websites (such as video or music files) are designated for storage on Akamai’s servers. By “tagging” files, Akamai increases the speed with which Internet users access its customers’ websites. Limelight also operates a CDN and carries out several of the steps in Akamai’s patent. Limelight, however, does not tag the components to be stored on its servers and requires its customers to perform their own “tagging.” Continue reading →

Fight for Your (Legal) Rights: The Beastie Boys Vindicate Their Copyright Interests, Again

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Image

Photo Credit: Stereogum

By Jeffrey Echert

It’s smooth legal sailing again for the Beastie Boys. Just last week, a federal court in New York handed down a decision in an infringement suit against Monster Energy. Monster had used five Beastie Boys songs in a promotional video for a snowboarding competition, as well as “RIP MCA” in a font similar to the Monster logo (Beastie Boys’ member MCA, real name Adam Yauch, died in 2012). The Beastie Boys brought suit, claiming infringement of copyright and that Monster falsely implied an endorsement by the Beastie Boys. After hearing extensive testimony from Adam Horovitz and Michael Diamond, the jury awarded the Boys 1.7 million dollars in damages.

We’ve previously reported on legal issues surrounding the potential appropriation of the Beastie Boys’ catalogue before—last year, toy company GoldieBlox sued the Boys, hoping to receive a declaratory judgment in its favor for the use of the song “Girls” in an advertisement. The case settled in March of this year. As part of the settlement agreement, GoldieBlox made a public apology and donated a percentage of its revenues to charities that support STEM education for girls. Continue reading →

AF Holdings v. Does: Copyright Trolls Lose Battle to Porn Pirates and ISPs

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Image

Photo Credit: Blogworld.com

By Max Burke

The D.C. Circuit dealt a blow to copyright trolls last Tuesday when it vacated the district court’s order for discovery in AF Holdings v. Does. The case, which was filed about two years ago, lists over 1,000 “Doe” defendants who are suspected of downloading AF Holdings’ pornographic films without permission. In an attempt to identify the unknown defendants, AF Holdings motioned the district court to compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to turn over the defendants’ personal information. The court granted the motion.

The ISPs, which include Comcast and Verizon, appealed the court’s order, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the venue was improper, and the defendants could not properly be joined together. The ISPs were mainly concerned that the order would allow AF Holdings to evade normal judicial procedures and unfairly leverage the defendants. Specifically, they believed the information sought would be used “to compile a contact list for Plaintiff to demand ‘settlement’ payments (typically ranging from $2,000-$4,000) from each subscriber . . . before any defendant is named or served in the lawsuits.” Continue reading →

SCOTUS Removes Laches Protection Against Raging Bull

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

ImageBy Stephanie Olson

On May 19th, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The Court ruled that the doctrine of laches does not bar copyright infringement suits if the suits are brought within the Copyright Act’s three-year rolling statute of limitations, absent extraordinary circumstances.

In reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that laches serves a gap-filling function and should be applied only in the absence of a limitation period. Because the Copyright Act provides a three-year limitation period, laches does not apply to copyright suits, except in extraordinary circumstances. This was not such a case.

In this case, boxing champion Jake LaMotta and his friend Frank Petrella copyrighted a screenplay in 1963 about LaMotta’s boxing career. An MGM subsidiary later acquired the rights. In 1980, MGM released and copyrighted Raging Bull, a film based off of the screenplay. Petrella died in 1981, and his daughter eventually obtained sole ownership of his copyright. She renewed it in 1991 and, in 1998, informed MGM that its exploitation of Raging Bull infringed on her copyright. In 2009, she sued MGM for infringing acts since 2006 pursuant to the separate-accrual rule, which creates a new limitation period for each infringing act. Continue reading →

Can ‘Kill Switch’ Laws Put An End To Smartphone Thefts? Minnesota Enacts First-Of-Its-Kind Legislation

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

ImageBy Craig Henson

Despite industry opposition, Minnesota lawmakers passed a law that will soon require electronics manufacturers to install ‘kill switch’ antitheft technology in new smartphones, and more states appear ready to follow their lead.

On May 15, 2014, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed the ‘kill switch’ bill into law. The bill, which is the first of its kind in the U.S., requires all smartphones sold or purchased in Minnesota and manufactured on or after July 15, 2015, to either come equipped with preloaded antitheft technology or else be capable of downloading such technology. The bill also establishes record keeping requirements for dealers acquiring used smartphones for resale, which include recording the seller’s name, address, and driver’s license number, as well as requiring the seller to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that the smartphone is not stolen and that the seller has the right to sell it. Minnesota lawmakers approved the legislation, in part, in response to a string of violent smartphone robberies on the University of Minnesota campus, hoping to thereby eliminate thieves’ incentives to steal the devices in the first place. Continue reading →