e-Commerce Docket Sheet

Following a Markman hearing, the district court issued a claim construction opinion in a dispute over alleged infringement of the plaintiff's electronic-commerce patent relating to 'a computer system for facilitating international computer-to-computer commercial transactions ' which enable international purchases of goods over the Internet.' De Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 7:04CV00628 (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2006). The patent owner claims that defendant computer manufacturer infringes the patents in conducting its international import and export business. The court construed disputed terms that define the operation of transaction-related software programs and the presentation of transaction-related information to users, including language and currency options, international shipping options, calculation of destination-based costs and determination of total costs, among other aspects of the disputed patents.

Ownership of a domain name is not established by evidence showing that a particular party paid the renewal fee for the domain-name registration. Delor v. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc., No. 04-3262, 2006 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 5053, (E.D. La. Feb. 9, 2006). The court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider a prior ruling that the plaintiff was not the owner of the domain name in dispute, finding that the evidence showing that the plaintiff had paid the renewal fee would not have affected its prior ruling. Commenting on the relationship between actual ownership of a domain name and registration of a domain name in the Internet Registry, the court noted that provisions in both the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agree-ment and the Network Solutions Inc. Domain Name Registration Agreement contemplate that ownership of a domain name may change independent of any transactions involving the domain-name registration system.

An attorney may outsource the storage of electronic client files to an outside service provider, if the attorney 'reasonably safeguards' client information from inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure. State Bar of Nevada Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion No. 33 (Feb. 9, 2006). The Committee commented that an attorney's responsibility is to act 'competently and reasonably' to protect electronic client information and communications from disclosure, subject to the same standards applicable to storing confidential paper files in a third-party warehouse. The Committee concluded that outsourced electronic storage is permissible provided that the attorney: 1) 'exercises reasonable care' in selecting a service provider that 'can be reasonably relied upon to keep the information confidential'; 2) 'has a reasonable expectation that the information will be kept confidential'; and 3) 'instructs and requires' the service provider to keep client information 'confidential and inaccessible.'