e-Commerce Docket Sheet

The doctrine of exhaustion of patent rights does not render unenforceable a true conditional license containing a single-use restriction imposed by a toner cartridge manufacturer on its patented toner cartridges. Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2003). The plaintiff, a toner remanufacturer trade group, claimed the restrictions were an unenforceable post-sale condition barred by the doctrine of patent exhaustion. The court disagreed, concluding that the license was a valid conditional license because the consumers had notice of the post-sale conditions and had an opportunity to reject them, and the toner cartridges were offered at a special price in exchange for the conditions.

Personal e-mails are not considered public records by virtue of their placement on a government owned computer system. State of Florida v. City of Clearwater, No. SC02-1694 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2003). The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the lower court's judgment that a city government did not have to turn copies of e-mail correspondence between two city employees conducted over the city's computer network over to a newspaper. The court held that personal e-mails were not “made or received in connection with official business,” and thus fell outside the scope of Florida's public records law. The city's “Computer Resources Use Policy,” which expressly disclaimed a user's expectation of privacy, could not be construed as expanding the scope of the public records statute. Further, the court distinguished automatically created e-mail headers from “purposely compiled and maintained” mail logs and phone records, which arguably qualified as public records.

For purposes of determining an insurer's contractual obligation to defend, a trademark complaint based on the defendant's allegedly improper domain name registration and use alleges an “advertising injury” as defined in the policy. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co v. Traveler Indem. Co. of Amer., No. 02-2069 (4th Cir. Sept. 4, 2003). Under the policy, advertising injury included the “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business.” The policy provided coverage only for advertising injuries caused by offenses committed in the course of advertising the insured's own goods, products or services. Reversing the District Court, the Fourth Circuit held that the cybersquatting complaint did in fact allege an advertising injury because, inter alia, a trademark was an advertising idea, and much of the advertising on the insured's Web site was for its own goods and services.