Justia Internet Law Opinion Summaries

Williamson's patent describes methods and systems for “distributed learning” that utilize industry standard computer hardware and software linked by a network to provide a virtual classroom). The system includes a presenter computer that controls information that appears on the audience member’s computer screen, audience member computers that display the presentation and can communicate with the presenter and other audience members, and a distributed learning server that implements a “virtual classroom” over a network, such as the Internet.. Williamson accused defendants of infringement based on their alleged manufacture, sale, use, and importation of systems and methods of online collaboration. The district court construed “graphical display representative of a classroom” and “first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom region” as requiring “a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map.” The court concluded that the limitation, “distributed learning control module,” was a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. 112(6) and that the specification failed to disclose necessary algorithms for performing all claimed functions, so that claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the constructions erroneous. View "Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC" on Justia Law

Navalimpianti, suing its former officers and employees (including Negro) in Florida, sought to obtain copies of e-mail messages stored by Google in California. Navalimpianti caused a subpoena to be served on Google, which Negro moved to quash. The California trial court ordered Google to produce the e-mails, based on its conclusion that Negro had consented, or was deemed to have consented, to their production. The court of appeal held that, at the time it was entered the order constituted an abuse of discretion. Since then, however, Negro has been ordered by a Florida court to give his express consent to disclosure, and he has complied with that order by e-mailing Google; the express consent takes the contemplated production outside of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2702 and permits Google to make the requested disclosure. View "Negro v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an aspiring model, filed a failure to warn suit against Internet Brands, the company who owns the website modelmayhem.com. Plaintiff had posted information about herself on the website and two rapists used the website to lure her to a fake audition where they drugged her, raped her, and recorded her for a pornographic video. The district court dismissed plaintiff's action because her claim was barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230(c). The court held that section 230(c)(1) precludes liability that treats a website as the publisher or speaker of information users provide on the website. This section protects websites from liability for material posted on the website from someone else. In this case, plaintiff does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a "publisher or speaker" of content someone posted on modelmayhem.com, or for Internet Brands' failure to remove content on the website. Plaintiff also does not claim to have been lured by any posting that Internet Brands failed to remove. Instead, plaintiff attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through the website. The duty to warn allegedly imposed by California law would not require Internet Brands to remove any user content or otherwise affect how it publishes such content. Therefore, the CDA does not bar plaintiff's failure to warn claim and the CDA was not a valid basis to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs’ patents claim technology for providing security over networks and assert priority to applications filed in the 1990s. They share a specification disclosing a domain name service system that resolves domain names and facilitates establishing “secure communication links.” In one embodiment, an application on the client computer sends a query including the domain name to a “secure domain name service,” which contains a database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. This allows a user to establish a secure communication link between a client computer and a secure target network address. The accused product, Apple’s FaceTime feature, allows secure video calling between select Apple devices: a caller enters an intended recipient’s e-mail address or telephone number into a device (e.g., iPhone). An invitation is sent to Apple’s server, which forwards the invitation to a network address translator which, in turn, readdresses the invitation and sends it on to the receiving device. The recipient may accept or decline the call. If accepted, servers establish a secure FaceTime call. A jury found infringement and that none of the infringed claims were invalid and awarded damages of $368,160,000. The Federal Circuit affirmed that none of the asserted claims are invalid; that many are infringed by Apple’s product; and the exclusion of evidence relating to the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. The court reversed a finding that the product infringes one claim under the doctrine of equivalents and the court’s construction of the claim term “secure communication link.”View "VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

BuySAFE’s patent claims methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party’s performance of its online transaction. In 2011, buySAFE sued Google, alleging that Google infringes claims 1, 14, 39, and 44 of that patent. The district court held the asserted claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing the approach to section 101 affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. View "BUYSAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, small business owners, filed a class action suit alleging that Yelp, an online forum, extorted or attempted to extort advertising payments from them by manipulating user reviews and penning negative reviews of their businesses. Plaintiffs filed suit against Yelp for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.; civil extortion; and attempted civil extortion. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that Yelp's manipulation of user reviews, assuming it occurred, was not wrongful use of economic fear, and that the business owners pled insufficient facts to make out a plausible claim that Yelp authored negative reviews of their businesses. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that these allegations did not support a claim for extortion. The court held that, to state a claim of economic extortion under both federal and California law, a litigant must demonstrate either that he had a pre-existing right to be free from the threatened harm, or that the defendant had no right to seek payment for the service offered. Given these stringent standards, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that Yelp wrongfully threatened economic loss by manipulating user reviews. None of the business owners have stated a claim of "unlawful" conduct on the basis of extortion. Therefore, the court dismissed the separate claims of civil extortion and attempted civil extortion. Further, plaintiffs' UCL claim failed under the "unfair" practices prong. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Levitt v. Yelp! Inc." on Justia Law

MST owns the rights to the 917 patent, which discloses the wireless activation and management of an electronic device without the need to have physical access to the device. The feature is useful because many businesses request that their employees use smartphones to store and transmit sensitive information. Should an employee lose a smartphone, the patent discloses a way to remotely delete sensitive data and methods to remotely deploy software updates and troubleshoot without the need for a constant connection or an initial activation. BlackBerry makes and sells handheld wireless devices and its BES software, which allows its corporate customers to deliver e-mail and other data to their employees’ BlackBerry devices. The BES software allows companies to remotely manage their employees’ devices. It is installed on a company server and communicates with a BlackBerry device by sending data in packets over the cheapest available network. After construing the “establishing a connection between the wireless device and the server” sub-step to mean “initiating wireless communication between a wireless device and the server” the district court held that Blackberry did not infringe the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed; there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could have found that BlackBerry infringes the asserted claims. View "Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a putative class of consumers whose Touchpad orders had been cancelled, alleging that Barnes & Noble had engaged in deceptive business practices and false advertising. On appeal, Barnes & Noble challenged the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff under the arbitration agreement contained in its website's Terms of Use. The court held that there was no evidence that the website user had actual knowledge of the agreement. The court also held that where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on - without more - is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice. Therefore, the court concluded that there is nothing in the record to suggest that those browsewrap terms at issue are enforceable by or against plaintiff, much less why they should give rise to constructive notice of Barnes & Noble's browsewrap terms. In light of the distinguishing facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Barnes & Noble's estoppel argument. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff had insufficient notice of Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use, and thus did not enter into an arbitration agreement. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc." on Justia Law

Amdocs and Openet compete in the market for “data mediation software,” which helps internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon and AT&T, track customer’s network usage and generate bills. When a customer sends an email, surfs the internet, sends a text message, or participates in a video conference, records of the activity are generated at various locations throughout the network. Data mediation software collects, processes, and compiles these records. Openet successfully moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. With regard to three patents, Openet argued that Amdocs was unable to point to actual infringing use and that the accused products did not practice all claim limitations. The district court held that Amdocs did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether the accused devices practiced “completing” or “enhance[ing]” “in a distributed fashion,” a requirement which it construed as common to all asserted claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with the construction of enhancement and completion, but finding that Amdocs’ documentary evidence describing the structure and operation of the accused product created factual issues regarding whether the product meets these constructions. The district court also granted summary judgment of noninfringement of a fourth patent. The Seventh Circuit vacated, citing erroneous claim construction . View "Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc." on Justia Law

Lightspeed operates online pornography sites and sued a defendant, identified only Internet Protocol address, which was allegedly associated with unlawful viewing of Lightspeed’s content, using a “hacked” password. Lightspeed identified 6,600 others (by IP addresses only) as “co‐conspirators” in a scheme to steal passwords and content. Lightspeed, acting ex parte, served subpoenas on the ISPs (then non‐parties) for the personally identifiable information of each alleged coconspirator, none of whom had been joined as parties. The ISPs moved to quash and for a protective order. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the ISPs. Lightspeed amended its complaint to name as co‐conspirator parties the ISPs and unidentified “corporate representatives,” alleging negligence, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 and 1030(g), and deceptive practices. Lightspeed issued new subpoenas seeking the personally identifiable information. The ISPs removed the case to federal court. The district judge denied an emergency motion to obtain the identification information. After several “changes” with respect to Lightspeed’s lawyers, the court stated that they “demonstrated willingness to deceive … about their operations, relationships, and financial interests have varied from feigned ignorance to misstatements to outright lies … calculated so that the Court would grant early‐discovery requests, thereby allowing [them] to identify defendants and exact settlement proceeds.” After granting Lightspeed’s motion for voluntary dismissal, the court granted attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. 1927, stating that the litigation “smacked of bullying pretense.” Failing to pay, the lawyers were found to be in civil contempt and ordered to pay 10% of the original sanctions award to cover costs for the contempt litigation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Duffy v. Smith" on Justia Law