Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit decisions in the Oracle v. Google copyright case rattled Silicon Valley not simply because the decisions upended software developers’ understandings of copyright law, but also because the decisions do not comport with the disruptive ethos of the technology industry.
The Federal Circuit decisions in the Oracle v. Google copyright case rattled Silicon Valley not simply because the decisions upended software developers’ understandings of copyright law, but also because the decisions do not comport with the disruptive ethos of the technology industry. Software development thrives on an open environment defined by creation through iteration. Yet, the Federal Circuit’s decisions grant a copyright holder a tremendous amount of control over even a small portion of code, and by extension, developers who use that code to create new products. Such control is especially acute when dealing with a copyright holder known for aggressive litigation tactics, such as Oracle. In the wake of Google’s recent petition for certiorari, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Google LLC v. Oracle Am. Inc., No. __ (Jan. 25, 2019), this article reviews the Federal Circuit decisions and summarizes their legal, economic, and cultural impact. The analysis suggests that much of the innovation of the technology sector now hinges on the U.S. Supreme Court.
By Karen Hoffman Lent and Kenneth Schwartz
The DOJ’s intervention, and the judge’s ultimate decision, has exposed tensions between the DOJ and FTC, and within the FTC itself, and public scrutiny is far from over as the case heads to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
By Nicole D. Galli
In the last five years, the courts have instead began wading into policy setting without the tools and resources to fully consider all the issues and various interests. Thus, the recent congressional efforts to consider these questions is welcome and, frankly, overdue.
By Scott Graham
Fifteen states had argued that they and their public universities shouldn’t have to expose their patents to validity review at the patent trial and appeal board.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit Finds District Court Erred in Analysis of Motivation to Combine Prior Art References, Yet Affirms Ultimate Conclusion of Non-obviousness Due to the Lack of a Reasonable Expectation of Success
Federal Circuit Rules that Issue Preclusion Bars a Party from Arguing in an Appeal of an Inter Partes Review Decision an Issue Previously Decided in Another Inter Partes Review Proceeding that Was Not Appealed