Photo credit: Hummy from flickr

By Kerra Melvin

According to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), cyberbullying “happens when teens use the Internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.” The prevalence of cyberbullying has exploded as more and more teens have social media profiles and possess mobile phones with text messaging capabilities. While results of studies vary, it has been estimated that between 10 percent and 40 percentof teens have been victims of cyberbullying. It is no surprise, then, that cyberbullying disputes are making their way into state and federal courts. Continue reading →

Photo credit: Keith Bloomfield (hardluck-hotel on Flickr)

By Aaron Orheim

On April 11th Jim Gaffigan joined a growing number of comedians and self-released a 75 minute comedy special. Traditionally, production companies pay comedians for a performance, tape it, and then sell the content fraught with copyright protections. The ultimate price consumers pay for the content reflects the costs of marketing, distribution, and enforcing copyright. Owners of copyright enjoy great protection under Title 17 of the U.S.C. and often sue unauthorized users in expensive lawsuits. Continue reading →

Photo credit: erix! of flickr

By Lauren Guicheteau

On April 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court reined in a pharmaceutical company’s ability to unilaterally extend the scope of its patent in Caraco Pharm. Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S. The Court held that generic-drug manufacturers can sue brand-name manufacturers to correct patentee’s use code with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This case originated with Novo Nordisk AS bringing an action against Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Inc. for infringement of Novo’s patent for repaglinide. The difficulty with Novo’s suit revolved around the fact that repaglinide was approved by the FDA for three separate uses related to diabetes, but Novo had a patent that covered only one of these uses. However, the use code that Novo submitted to the FDA included all three uses.

Use codes are the descriptions of companies’ method-of use patents that brand name manufacturers submit to the FDA. 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.53(c)(2)(ii)(P)(3), (e) (2011). When the FDA considers an application from a manufacturer to market a generic drug, it looks to the use codes to evaluate whether marketing would infringe upon a brand-name drug manufacturer’s patent. The FDA decides whether to approve or deny a generic drug based on the description in the use code, without verifying the accuracy of the information. Overly broad use codes can prevent generic drugs, which save consumers billions of dollars each year, from entering the market.

In response to Novo’s suit, Caraco brought a counterclaim which sought an order under 21 U.S.C. § 355 to correct Novo’s overbroad description of its patent, so Caraco could market repaglinide for the non-patented uses. The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Congress authorized a generic company to bringing this type of counterclaim in a patent infringement suit. Congress had passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which created a statutory counterclaim available to generic manufacturers sued for patent infringement. This Act was passed, in part, as a response to a study by the Federal Trade Commission that detailed how brands were submitting inaccurate patent information to the FDA. The court in Caraco Pharm. Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S analyzed the scope of this counterclaim provision specifically interpreting the section that explains a generic company “may assert a counterclaim seeking an order requiring the [brand manufacturer] to correct or delete the patent information [it] submitted … under [two statutory subsections] on the ground that the patent does not claim … an approved method of using the drug.” 117 Stat. 2452, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I). The Court interpreted this provision so that a “generic manufacturer may employ this provision to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using the drug in question.” At page 7. Hopefully, by giving generic manufacturers a way to force corrections, this ruling is a step towards accurate FDA use codes.

By subarcticmike of Flickr

By Bryan Russell

On April 5th, 2012, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit published its long-awaited review of the granted summary judgment motion in favor of YouTube against Viacom. The district court originally found YouTube immune to liability for the copyright infringement of its users under the safe-harbor provision for online service providers in §512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Defendants are granted summary judgment that they qualify for the protection of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), as expounded above, against all of plaintiffs’ claims for direct and secondary copyright infringement. Plaintiffs’ motions for judgment are denied”). The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Continue reading →

The Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts (Journal) today published its third issue of the 2011-12 school year. The Journal publishes concise legal analysis aimed at practicing attorneys on a quarterly basis. This quarter’s edition includes three articles by student members of the Journal’s editorial board, a collaboration between a University of Washington School of Law student and a practitioner, and an essay on Internet freedom. Continue reading →