The Monday News Catch-up: see all of the main cases and news articles in the IP law from last week (02/17/2020 - 02/21/2020)
Copyright
The Battle of the Briefs! Amicus Briefs Tally in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc: 32 for Oracle, 26 for Google, and 2 for None
One of the major copyright cases to watch for this year is Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. In this case, Oracle has claimed that Google had copied its software code (Java’s Application Programming Interfaces (API)) and used it in its Android Operating System (OS) without first obtaining permission or a license. Google used the code from Java’s API to help facilitate developers to write their own programs for Android OS, which used many of the same names and functionality as Java’s API.
Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement, but the federal district judge held that APIs are not subject to copyright because permitting a private entity to own the copyright to a programming language would stifle innovation and collaboration, contrary to the goals of copyright. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court, finding that the Java APIs are copyrightable but leaving open the possibility of a fair use defense. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Google’s petition for certiorari.
Upon remand to the district court, a jury found that Google's use of the Java API was fair use. Oracle appealed, and the Federal Circuit again reversed the lower court. The Federal Circuit held that Google's use was not fair as a matter of law.
The case now is sitting in the U.S. Supreme Court docket with the current issues outstanding:
1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and
2) Whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
Ahead of Wednesday’s deadline for filing Amicus Briefs, a surprising 32 additional briefs were filed in support of Oracle. Everyone, from the federal government to Hollywood Studios have intervened and submitted briefs as the outcome of this case might define how board the fair use doctrine may be applied when a piece of code or software becomes as popular as Java’s API, which will have profound effects in the technology industry.
Currently, 32 amicus briefs were filed for Oracle, 26 for Google and 2 for neither party. Oral arguments are set for March 24, with a ruling expected by the end of the term.
The case is Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., case number 18-956, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sources:
Patent
Can’t Touch This! Neodron Sues Tech Giants Over Keyboard Patent Infringements
The Ireland based company, Neodron has filed multiple patent infringement suits against tech giants, such as Apple, Amazon, AsusTek Computer, Microsoft, etc., to patents related to touchscreen mobile devices sold by the tech giants.
The law suit claims that the companies are infringing upon four separate patents related to keyboard functionality and sensitivity. Specifically, they are:
Patent No. 7,821,425 (“Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity);
Patent No. 7,903,092 (“Capacitive Keyboard with Position Dependent Reduced Keying ambiguity”);
Patent No. 8,749,251 (“Proximity Sensor”); and
Patent No. 9,411,472 (“Touch sensor with Adaptive Touch Detection”).
Neodron is requesting, among other things, a ruling in favor of Neodron that the defendants have infringed upon all four of its patents, a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from further acts of infringement, and damages for the infringements. More Specifically, Neodron has asked the US International Trade Commission to block the importation of touchscreen mobile devices made and sold by these tech giants.
What is interesting to note regarding this lawsuit is that as per the Washington Times, Neodron appears to be a patent pirate or patent troll, i.e. a company in the business of buying patents from other companies, then using the patents it acquires to file lawsuits in the hopes of getting heaps of money via settlement. Thus, it appears that Neodron may not truly seek the ban of all touchscreen devices that infringe upon its patent, but simply wants to collect damages and potential future royalties.
One of the cases that Neodron has filed is NEODRON LTD., vs Apple, Inc., case number 6:2020CV00116, in US District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Sources:
Trademark
Brand Abandonment: Meghan Markle and Harry withdraw their trademark application for “Sussex Royal”
Although not specific to US Trademark law, it is noteworthy that ever since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have left the royal family, they had attempted to hold onto their title as “Sussex Royal” by filing a trademark application. Earlier last week, however, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said the pair no longer intended to use the name in any territory past Spring of 2020. Their spokesperson further stated: “Therefore the trademark applications that were filed as protective measures, acting on advice from and following the same model for The Royal Foundation, have been removed.”
Source
Other News Worthy Articles
That Was My Idea First! Uber Must Go to Trial for One Billion Dollar Trade Secrets Suit (Kevin Halpern v. Uber Technologies)
Last week, a San Francisco jury found that Kevin Halpern had filed a timely suit against Uber for potentially stealing his idea for the ride-hailing app. Uber must now go to trial and defend itself against the one billion dollar trade secrets suit brought against it.
Under California’s Trade Secrets Law (see Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6), any lawsuit for misappropriation of trade secrets must be bought within “three years of after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”
In this case, Halpern claims that back in 2002 he came up with the Uber rideshare app idea, which he was developing under the name “Celluride Wireless Inc.” Celluride was designed to connect limo and black car drivers to passengers via peer-to-peer networking and GPS tracking. In 2006, he shared his idea with Kalanick Travis and Garret Camp (Uber’s co-founders), which he later claimed used the idea to find Uber.
According to the Halpern, he was drawn to Travis as he was the CEO of a peer-to-peer file sharing service and had the ability to secure investments from large investors, such as Mark Cuban. Although Uber was officially launched in 2009, Halpern claims that the did not know that the founders of Uber were Travis and Camp until 2012 when he made the connection while reading a new paper article. Halpern sequentially filed suit in California state court in 2015 for misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and breach of contract.
Travis and Camp, however, claimed that they came up with the idea while both of them were in Paris and discussing a potential “limo timeshare service.” Additionally, Uber’s co-counsel, Durie Tangri LLP, stated that Uber received significant media coverage throughout 2010 and 2011 and that any reasonable person conducting due diligence on the matter should have found Travis and Camp’s involvement in Uber.
The Jury, however, found that the trade secrets suit was bought in a timely manner and was not barred by the three years statute of limitations.
The case is Halpern et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number CGC15545825, in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco.
Sources:
Part of the cover image was sourced from: Slash Gear