In a decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, it was decided that use of the generic term "Lift Shop" in the title of a webpage was not trademark infringement.
See: Lift Shop v. Easy Living Home Elevators [2014] FCAFC 75
See also comment.
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
A Town Like Alice
The U.S. Supreme Court decided the Alice Corp v. CLS Bank patent case today.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court today affirmed the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision invalidating the patents asserted by Alice Corporation against CLS Bank International as ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al. (U.S. June 19, 2014).
In an opinion by Justice Thomas, today’s Supreme Court opinion held that:
In applying Mayo step one, the Court determined that Alice’s claims were drawn to the abstract concept of intermediated settlement (i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk). Rejecting Alice’s arguments that the abstract-ideas category is confined to preexisting fundamental truths that exist apart from any human action, the Court ruled that intermediated settlement has long been a fundamental practice in our system of commerce, and recognized that Alice’s claims to intermediated settlement were not meaningfully distinguishable from the risk hedging claims it previously held to be abstract in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, opined that claims to business methods are ineligible per se for patent protection, because they do not qualify as a process under 35 U.S.C. §101.
See note from WilmerHale and prior blog posts below.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court today affirmed the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision invalidating the patents asserted by Alice Corporation against CLS Bank International as ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al. (U.S. June 19, 2014).
In an opinion by Justice Thomas, today’s Supreme Court opinion held that:
[T]he claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
In applying Mayo step one, the Court determined that Alice’s claims were drawn to the abstract concept of intermediated settlement (i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk). Rejecting Alice’s arguments that the abstract-ideas category is confined to preexisting fundamental truths that exist apart from any human action, the Court ruled that intermediated settlement has long been a fundamental practice in our system of commerce, and recognized that Alice’s claims to intermediated settlement were not meaningfully distinguishable from the risk hedging claims it previously held to be abstract in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, opined that claims to business methods are ineligible per se for patent protection, because they do not qualify as a process under 35 U.S.C. §101.
See note from WilmerHale and prior blog posts below.
Machines v Lawyers
"Some observers, not implausibly, blame the recession for these developments. But the plight of legal education and of the attorney workplace is also a harbinger of a looming transformation in the legal profession. Law is, in effect, an information technology—a code that regulates social life. And as the machinery of information technology grows exponentially in power, the legal profession faces a great disruption not unlike that already experienced by journalism, which has seen employment drop by about a third and the market value of newspapers devastated. The effects on law will take longer to play themselves out, but they will likely be even greater because of the central role that lawyers play in public life."
See Full Article - Machines v. Lawyers
See Full Article - Machines v. Lawyers
Privacy in the Digital Era
The Australian Government announces the release of the Discussion Paper for this Inquiry, Serious
Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era (DP 80).
The
Discussion Paper provides a detailed account of ALRC research so far,
and includes 48 proposals and a number of questions for people to
consider and provide feedback on. The ALRC
is proposing a model for a new statutory cause of action for serious
invasions of privacy to be included in a new Commonwealth Act, and also
is putting forward other alternative proposals to strengthen privacy
protection.
The Discussion Paper is available in HTML, PDF, and as an ebook.
·
See Media
Release >>
·
See Discussion
Paper >>
Software and Internet patents
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in what has been described as the most important intellectual property case in a decade: Alice v. CLS Bank. One party in this case is an Australian company, that owns the patent in question.
Prior blog posts are here and here.
A NYTimes opinion article is worth reading.
Prior blog posts are here and here.
A NYTimes opinion article is worth reading.
Cloud Speeds
An interesting non-legal article looking at the various Cloud services and comparing speeds: ComputerWorld.
Who Owns the Internet?
Two Harvard Law School experts — Jonathan Zittrain '95, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and Susan Crawford, John A. Reilly Visiting Professor in Intellectual Property — weigh in on a lawsuit in federal court that may decide whether Web access remains open and neutral. Read More.
Privacy Guidelines in Australia
The Privacy Guidelines are no longer consultation drafts – the final version was released today (link below).
They have reversed
their view on the application
of the Privacy Act to foreign website operators. So much so that the
guidelines now conclude that “Where an entity merely has a website that can be accessed from Australia, this is generally not sufficient to establish that the
website operator is ‘carrying on a business’ in Australia”
Signature in Email
An interesting recent Federal Circuit Court decision to the
effect that a person’s name at the bottom of an email was a signature -
Austral-Asia Freight Pty Ltd v Turner [2013] FCCA 298
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2013/298.html
Austral-Asia Freight Pty Ltd v Turner [2013] FCCA 298
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2013/298.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...