Call 855-808-4530 or email Gro[email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The United States Supreme Court did not destroy the Internet on May 18, 2023. That day, the Court released its opinions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 143 S. Ct. 1206 (2023). In these companion cases from the Ninth Circuit, family members of ISIS victims sued large tech companies under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for allegedly aiding and abetting foreign terrorists by providing them with platforms “for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds, and attracting new recruits.” Complaint ¶ 12, Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-4107 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Defendants in both cases asserted defenses under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Section 230). Section 230, generally speaking, shields online platforms from liability for otherwise actionable content users post on their sites. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases on Oct. 3, 2022, worry quickly spread that the Court “could break the Internet” by weakening this liability shield. Isaac Chotiner, “Two Supreme Court Cases that Could Break the Internet,” New Yorker (Jan. 25, 2023).
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Howard Shire and Sean McConnell
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court set new geographic limits for infringement and false designation of origin claims raised under Sections 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act. Given the global nature of business today, the decision highlights the need for trademark owners to continually reassess and, perhaps, expand their international trademark registration strategy as product lines and brands become more international in scope.
By Steven James and Hattie Chessher
In April 2021, a food fight broke out between two of the UK’s largest supermarkets. Marks and Spencer launched legal action against Aldi over the latter’s alleged copy of its signature “Colin the Caterpillar” cake. This article takes a look at the issues surrounding lookalikes, what the English courts have said about them and what can be done by brand owners to protect against the risks they present.
By Amir Kashani, Xuechen (Rebecca) Ding and Aseet Patel
Takeaways from 'IBM v. Zillow' from a Patent Drafting Perspective
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
In Part One of this article we discussed the IBM v. Zillow case, where IBM sued Zillow for infringing on seven IBM’s patents directed to artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for estimating property value. The focus was on the difficulties in establishing patent infringement on specific AI algorithms, as well as the strategic advantages of including additional patent claims that target ancillary features of an AI system. In this segment, we analyze the claims made in the Zillow case and present some tips for drafting AI-related claims from the perspective of patent infringement.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Joyce L. Nadipuram
Federal Circuit Clarifies Motivation to Combine to Achieve the Claimed Invention and Holds IPR Petitioner Must Be Given Opportunity to Reply Where Patent Owner First Proposes Claim Construction In a Response