The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz to address the following question: "Did the Ninth Circuit err in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. §411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration?"
With federal student loan forbearance set to expire at the end of September, many hoped the high court would provide, if not clarity, at least uniformity for the millions of Americans who currently are on the hook for student loans.
Nearly a century after endorsing the doctrine of assignor estoppel, the Court concluded that it applies "when, but only when, the assignor's claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent."
The Supreme Court is considering a petition in a §101 case, in which the Federal Circuit split six-to-six in denying rehearing en banc, and in which the Supreme Court recently called for the views of the Solicitor General.
The Court held that only those who obtain information from particular areas of the computer which they are not authorized to access can be said to "exceed authorization," and the statute does not — as the government had argued — cover behavior where a person accesses information which he is authorized to access but does so for improper purposes.
The Court held that only those who obtain information from particular areas of the computer which they are not authorized to access can be said to "exceed authorization."
In a decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the statutory scheme appointing PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs) to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
When law enforcement seeks to compel a subject to provide a passcode to allow them to rummage through a cellphone, courts have not spoken with a unified voice. Some, including New Jersey's highest court, have arrived at the dubious conclusion that requiring an individual to communicate cellphone passcodes to the government does not warrant Fifth Amendment protection. Commentators had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would reject that expansive view, however, the Supreme Court declined to wade in, seemingly guaranteeing that continued uncertainty on this critical issue will continue to bedevil criminal practitioners.
Google didn't get an answer from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the Java Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) it copied from Sun Microsystems were copyrightable. But it got just about everything else it could have hoped for in a decision that ended its 11-year copyright clash with Sun's successor, Oracle.
The Court cleared Google of copyright infringement in terminating a 16-year long dispute as to whether Google's Android mobile platform had infringed Oracle's Java programming language's copyright. However, the Court did not answer the question of whether specific components of computer software qualifies for copyright protection at all.
