JOLT Digest

CAFC Requires a Clear and Convincing Intent to Deceive
By Adrienne Baker – Edited by Stephanie Young
In re Bose Corp., No. 2008-1448, 2009 WL 2709312 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 2009).
Opinion

On August 31, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision, which ruled that fraud is committed when a registrant or applicant makes material misrepresentations it knows or should have known to be false or misleading.  The CAFC held the TTAB applied the should-have-known standard too broadly and thus ruled a registrant or applicant must have specific intent to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to fraudulently acquire a trademark.  The evidence supporting the registrant’s or applicant’s intent to deceive must be clear and convincing.  The CAFC ruling significantly limits, if not overturns, Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1205 (T.T.A.B. 2003), in which the TTAB adopted the should-have-known standard.

The TTABlog provides an overview of the case.  Allen’s Trademark Digest, in addition to providing a detailed history of trademark fraud, criticizes the decision and asserts that the Bose holding implies that registrants and applicants have no duty of candor.  Furthermore, the article asserts the CAFC ruling is contrary to the Lanham Act and the Trademark Law Revision Act (“TLRA”) statutory definitions of “use.” (more…)

By Andrew Jacobs

ISPs Found Liable for Websites’ Trademark and Copyright Infringement

Computerworld and Ars Technica report that on August 28, a federal jury handed down a $32.4 million judgment against two ISPs that hosted websites selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton products. Louis Vuitton successfully argued on a theory of contributory infringement, overcoming the ISPs’ claims of immunity under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” provisions. Evidence that the ISPs had received and failed to respond to notices of the illegal activity from Louis Vuitton was key to the case.

EU to Investigate Oracle/Sun Deal

On September 3, the European Union’s antitrust regulators announced plans for a formal investigation of Oracle’s planned buyout of Sun Microsystems, The Washington Post reports. The investigation will center on the competitive consequences of “the world’s biggest proprietary database company . . . tak[ing] over the world’s leading open-source database company.” The European Commission will come to a ruling on the deal by January 19; the U.S. Department of Justice has already approved it.

Authors Voice Privacy Concerns in Objection to Google Settlement

A group of authors and publishers filed an objection to the proposed settlement between The Authors’ Guild and Google Book Search (GBS), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported on September 8. A fairness hearing regarding the settlement is set for next month. In the objection, prepared by EFF, the ACLU, and the Samuelson Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, the authors assert that GBS’s collection of personally identifiable information regarding users’ habits will having a chilling effect on readership. Limited information retention and strict disclosure standards are among the authors’ specific demands.

Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc.

By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Stephanie Young
Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc., 2008-1459, -1476 (CAFC Sept. 3, 2009)
Opinion

On September 3, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s jury verdict finding that Martek’s patents were valid and infringed, but reversed the points of error Martek asserted on cross appeal. The Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting as an expanded five-member panel: 1) upheld the district court’s denial of Lonza’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”); 2) found that the district court’s exclusion of Lonza’s prior inventorship evidence was appropriate; 3) upheld the district court’s construction of the term “non-chloride sodium salt”; 4) reversed the district court’s finding that two claims of the ’567 patent were invalid as a matter of law; and 5) expanded the district court’s limited construction of the claim term “animal” in the ’244 patent to include humans.

Briefs and relevant court documents are available here. The District Court’s 2007 decision may be found here. Patently-o and Patent Hawk both provide a discussion of merits. Patently-o and IP Watchdog discuss the significance of the five-judge panel. (more…)

Third Circuit Upholds Online Gambling Ban
By Caitlyn Ross – Edited by Amanda Rice

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 08-1981 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009)
Opinion (Hosted by wired.com)

On September 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision, which upheld the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Wired.com provides an overview of the case. The Wall Street Journal features an analysis of the decision and its potential effects on online gambling. Additional analysis can be found on ZDnet and Law.com. (more…)

Conviction in Lori Drew MySpace Case Thrown Out

By Vera Ranieri – Edited by Amanda Rice
United States v. Drew, No. CR 08-0582-GW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2009)
Opinion

On August 28, 2009, Judge Wu of the Central District of California released a written opinion outlining his reasons for granting Lori Drew’s FRCP 29(c) motion for a post-verdict acquittal, a decision he had initially announced in early July. Judge Wu’s decision overturned the jury’s conviction of Lori Drew for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) by breaching the MySpace Terms of Service (“ToS”).

Ars Technica and Wired summarize the case. Eric Goldman provides a thoughtful analysis of the case, characterizing it as “a good jurisprudential development” while criticizing its lack of clarity. (more…)