IP Blog
State and Federal Statutes
35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and the Burdens of Providing Notice for Pre-Suit Damages: Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc.
In Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed a jury determination for pre-suit damages, and vacated an enhancement of such damages, for Netscout’s infringement of U.S. Patent 6,665,725, U.S. Patent 6,839,751, and U.S. Patent 6,954,789, all owned by Packet Intelligence. The patents at issue were all directed to monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network. The...
An Inventor Must Be a Natural Person, Not a Machine
The Bicentennial Man is out of luck.* The Patent Office recently issued a ruling that only a human can be an inventor. The application at issue listed “DABUS” as the sole inventor. DABUS is a collection of neural nets designed as a “creativity machine” by Stephen Thaler, who is also the assignee of the application. The application was filed with...
CBM Estoppel Limited to Substantially Identical References
A district court recently held the scope of estoppel from covered-business-method (CBM) review encompasses the references used in the CBM as well as almost-identical references. (Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp et al. (D. Minn. 2018).) This dispute started with Solutran suing U.S. Bank for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945. The ’945 patent covers a method of processing checks. U.S....
No Estoppel for Art in Contentions but Not IPR Petition
Earlier this month in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2018), the District of Massachusetts added another case to the majority view of the scope of inter partes review estoppel, deciding that Wangs could assert prior art included in invalidity contentions but omitted from a subsequent IPR petition. Philips had asserted...
IPR Estoppel Remains Elusive for Patent Owners
In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC, No. 15-cv-03295-BLF, (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017), the court took the majority view on the scope of Inter Partes review estoppel, finding no estoppel for grounds of invalidity not included in a petition and for grounds of invalidity denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan had sued Blue Coat, among...
Action Brought Under DMCA and CFAA Dismissed (Part II)
In Part I of this post, we discussed copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims brought in LivePerson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3688, No. 1:2014cv01559 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2015). Now we turn to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) claim brought in the case, and lessons from pleading deficiencies with respect to...
Hi-Jacked LinkedIn Account Doesn't Cause "Loss" Under the CFAA
A plaintiff’s claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(a)(5)(C), based on her ex-employer’s alleged hi-jacking of her LinkedIn account, has failed to survive the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to show a “loss” under the CFAA. Eagle v. Morgan, No. 11-4303 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2012). The plaintiff had...
4th Circuit Adopts Narrow Construction of CFAA
Does an employee act “without authorization” or “exceed authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC § 1030, by accessing computers with a username and password provided by an employer, albeit in a manner against the employer’s policies and/or interests? The Fourth Circuit has joined other courts taking a narrow view of the CFAA, holding that the...
Violations of Employer's Computer Use Restrictions Does Not Violate CFAA
Hospital employees did not “exceed authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 USC § 1030, when they violated the hospital’s computer usage policy by attaching removable storage devices to computers that they were otherwise authorized to access. Wentworth-Douglass Hospital v. Young & Novis Professional Ass’n., No. 10-cv-120-SM (D. N.H. June 29, 2012). The plaintiff hospital brought...
Attempted CFAA Class-Action Claim Against Amazon Dismissed on Failure to Plead "Loss"
Plaintiffs seeking to bring a class action lawsuit against Amazon failed to allege a “loss” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, by simply pleading that Amazon had taken and exploited, for financial gain, private information that the plaintiffs could not show had financial value to them. Del Vecchio v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C11-366RSL (W.D. Wash....