Guidance for UK Life Sciences Offered During End of Brexit Transition

Brexit flags of Europe and UKWith the Brexit transition period ending on December 31st, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is issuing guidance for the UK Life Science industry – including guidance on clinical trials, market authorizations, and manufacture and supply, among other areas. The guidance will apply from the start of 2021. Squire Patton Boggs’ Triage Health Law blog provides more information in a recent post.

Tech Sprint for Innovations in Electronically-Delivered Adverse Action Notices

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is providing a new forum for innovation – designated as Tech Sprints – to generate “actionable ideas” for reducing regulatory burdens and improving consumer understanding of financial services. Tech Sprints will be held virtually, and competing teams will work to realize identified goals. The first Tech Sprint, to be held October 5-9, 2020, will focus on “developing a range of innovative approaches to electronically-delivered adverse action notices” required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Squire Patton Boggs’ Security & Privacy // Bytes blog provides more information in a recent post.

Ninth Circuit: Under the “Asserted Truth Doctrine” (f/k/a “Copyright Estoppel”) Authors of Nonfiction Cannot Later Claim a Work is Fictional to Pursue a Copyright Case

In an opinion that will be of particular interest to writers, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that authors of non-fiction works cannot later claim that elements of their work were, in fact, fictional in order to extend the scope of copyright protection.

The plaintiff in Corbello v. Valli et al., Case No. 17-16337 (9th Cir., September 8, 2020) was the estate of the co-author of an autobiography of Tommy DeVito, one of the original members of the band the Four Seasons. Even though the work was never published, DeVito provided a copy of the autobiography to Frankie Valli and other members of the band who were working on developing a Broadway play based on the band’s history. The autobiography was admittedly very helpful in developing the play,  Jersey Boys, which went on to become a huge success. Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Expressly Declares that Juries Determine the Standard-Essentiality of Patent Claims

In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings Ltd.,[1] the Federal Circuit definitively answered the question: “Who determines the standard-essentiality of the patent claims at issue—the court, as part of claim construction, or the jury, as part of its infringement analysis?” According to this precedential decision authored by Judge Kathleen O’Malley: “Where . . . there are material disputes of fact regarding whether asserted claims are in fact essential to all implementation of an industry standard, the question of essentiality must be resolved by the trier of fact in the context of an infringement trial.”[2] With this opinion, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its holding in the 2010 decision Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc. (“Fujitsu”)[3] and rejected an interpretation that sought to require district courts to assess the essentiality of an asserted claim to an industry standard as a part of their claim construction analysis. Continue Reading

Case Closed? German Federal Court of Justice Issues Groundbreaking Judgment on FRAND Rules in Sisvel v. Haier

Recent Supreme Court decisions have added clarity to the interpretation of the law of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing rules in Europe. On 5 May 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice issued its decision in Sisvel v. Haier.[1] The reasons for the judgment were published on 7 July 2020. Equally eagerly awaited were the judgments in Unwired Planet vs. Huawei [2] as well as in Conversant vs. ZTE and Huawei [3], which the UK Supreme Court handed down on 26 August 2020. Continue Reading

Are Changes to the DMCA on the Horizon?

On June 2, technology companies and copyright holders testified before Congress about the effectiveness of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) “safe harbor” provision. These testimonies came after the U.S. Copyright Office released its long-anticipated May 21 report, which studied and discussed DMCA’s effectiveness and the safe harbor provision. Continue Reading

To Embed or Not to Embed?: A New Challenge to Embedding Images From Social Media

iconsEmbedding content from a social media site in one’s website initially seemed to be a safe harbor from a copyright infringement claim. In 2007, the Ninth Circuit adopted the so-called “server test,” ruling that in-line linking of images – now more commonly referred to as embedding – did not violate the exclusive display, copying or distribution rights of the copyright holder because, via HTML instructions, users are only directed to the website where the images are stored.[1] That ruling, at least as to violation of the display right, has recently been rejected, with at least one court finding a violation of a copyright owner’s exclusive display right regardless of whether a third-party server hosted the image.[2] Continue Reading

July Shows Dramatic Increase in ITC Complaints

After a steady, but typical number of Section 337 complaints filed in the first half of 2020, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) saw a dramatic increase in July. Twelve new complaints were filed, representing the second largest number of complaints ever filed in one month. Despite issues surrounding the COVID-19 crisis and uncertain economic times, the ITC continues to be a forum of choice for patent owners and the increased activity in July demonstrates that patent owners continue to have confidence in the ITC as an effective forum in which to assert their patent rights. Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Finds a “Hooke” to Patent Ineligibility

 On July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a modified and reissued decision[1] (American Axle II) of its earlier October 3, 2019 decision[2] (American Axle I) in response to a combined petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc concerning patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At issue were independent claims 1 and 22 and associated asserted dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911 entitled “Method for Attenuating Driveline Vibrations.” In the July 31, 2020 modified decision, the majority opinion maintained that claim 22 was patent-ineligible, but changed its original opinion affirming the patent ineligibility of claim 1 and, instead, remanded claim 1 to the district court for further proceedings. Both decisions were split, over strongly worded dissents. There were several additional vigorous dissents in a 6-6 decision[3] denying the petition for rehearing en banc. Continue Reading

LexBlog