The California Court of Appeal held earlier this month that certain right of publicity claims are freely assignable, and that the Copyright Act does not preempt a right of publicity claim where the defendant has no legal right to publish the copyrighted work. The decision, Timed Out v. Youabian, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 830 (Cal. App. Ct. Sept. 12, 2014), will encourage right of publicity lawsuits and increase the costs associated with rights clearances.
Posts by Kristina Tsamis
California Court of Appeal Rules Models’ Right of Publicity Claims Assignable, Not Preempted by Copyright ActBy Ambika Kumar Doran & Karen Henry
On September 17, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee approved the bi-partisan federal Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5233, which we previously wrote about when introduced in July, 2014 by North Carolina Representative George Holding. H.R. 5233 seeks to amend the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. Regarding the importance of the Act, Rep. Holding and other supporters noted that “[a]s of 2009, the value of trade secrets owned by U.S. companies was estimated to be nearly $5 trillion. While current federal law protects other forms of intellectual property by providing access to federal courts for aggrieved parties to seek redress, there is no federal option to do so for trade secret theft.”
Following the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, several software patents have been invalidated by the Federal Circuit, and district courts. In Alice Corp., the court set out a two prong validity test. First, whether the subject matter is eligible for a patent; and second, if so, whether the recitation of generic computer components adds something that is not already present when the steps are considered separately? For software patent applicants, Alice Corp. now requires that the method or system 1) improve the functioning of the computer itself, and do more than instruct one to apply the abstract idea on an unspecified generic computer; or 2) effect an improvement in another technology or field.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on CommLawBlog.
FCC provides “bulk upload” option for adding even more comments to the million-plus already on file – now who’s going to read them all?
When last we took a sounding of the rising floodwaters of net neutrality comments, they were 1.1 million deep and more were pouring in. That was a month ago and, we’re pleased to report, the levees have apparently held. At least we assume that to be the case because the FCC has just announced, in effect, that it’s opening the dam upstream in an apparent effort to increase the flow of incoming comments.
The recent case of Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd. is noteworthy for its imposition of near-terminal evidentiary sanctions, and order directing counsel and defendant to jointly pay plaintiffs’ cost of bringing motions to compel. But its important lesson is that counsel must stay abreast of continuing changes in information technologies, and critically assess client information about electronically stored information if they are to meet their duties to courts and clients.
In today’s complex work of insurance, many insurance risks are “reinsured” by a separate insurance carrier. In those instances, it is not unusual for insurers and reinsurers to have regular communications concerning the insured, and in particular, concerning matters about which they both have an interest. Most of the time, the insurer and reinsurer consider such communications to be confidential, and not subject to discovery. However, whether seemingly confidential communications between insurers and reinsurers is discoverable in litigation involving an underlying insured is not a clear cut question. Outside of Texas, there is a split of authority regarding the issue of discoverability of reinsurance communications. A recent order issued by the Northern District of Texas demonstrates that such communication can be discoverable if an insured can persuade the court that the sought after information is relevant to his or her underlying claims.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog.
Seemingly every day, new types of wearable devices are popping up on the market. Google Glass, Samsung’s Gear, Fitbit (a fitness and activity tracker), Pulse (a fitness tracker that measures heart rate and blood oxygen), and Narrative (a wearable, automatic camera) are just a few of the more popular “wearables” currently on the market, not to mention Apple’s “iWatch,” rumored to be released later this year. In addition, medical devices are becoming increasingly advanced in their ability to collect and track patient behavior.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Peter S. Vogel’s Internet, Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog.
A Judge ruled it was unreasonable to ask Apple “to execute a search warrant” which “could pose problems, as non-government employees, untrained in the details of criminal investigation, likely lack the requisite skills and expertise to determine whether a document is relevant to the investigation” according to a report in Computerworld. On August 7, 2014 Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts (US District Court, District of Columbia) in the case of In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [REDACTED]@mac.com that is Stored at the Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc. reversed an earlier decision by a Magistrate Judge which “refused to allow a two-step procedure whereby law enforcement is provided all emails relating to a target account, and is then allowed to examine the emails at a separate location to identify evidence.”
Insurers and reinsurers regularly communicate regarding matters they view as confidential. These communications often relate to claims, both routine and litigated, by the underlying insureds. Insureds, in turn, seek discovery of these communications when claims become contentious and litigated. Recent federal court decisions in Minnesota and Texas demonstrate the willingness of courts to permit discovery of communications between insurance companies and their reinsurers. Conversely, a federal court in Indiana recently rejected requests for reinsurance communications. These cases illustrate the difficultly faced by insurers and reinsurers in understanding the discoverability of their communications prior to litigation. Although insurers and reinsurers may view their communications as confidential, they must be mindful of the potential discoverability of these communications, particularly when litigated claims are involved.