Justia Internet Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement based on a finding that defendants were entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512. The court held that, although the district court correctly held that the section 512(c) safe harbor required knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, the court vacated the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website. The court further held that the district court erred by interpreting the "right and ability to control" infringing activity to require "item-specific" knowledge. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fell within the safe harbor for infringement that occurred "by reason of" storage at the direction of the user, and remanded for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Viacom International, Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc., et al.; The Football Assoc. Premier League Ltd., et al. v. Tur, et al." on Justia Law

The Secretary filed an administrative complaint alleging that three hedge funds offered by Bulldog Investors violated section 301 of G.L.c. 110A by offering unregistered securities to a Massachusetts resident through a publicly available website and an e-mail message. The Secretary adopted the hearing officer's finding of a violation and ordered Bulldog Investors to cease and desist from committing any further violations and to take all necessary actions to ensure that future offers and sales of securities complied with section 301. The court held that the challenged provisions of the Massachusetts law were part of a constitutionally permissible disclosure scheme and, to the extent that they restricted speech, they were tailored in a reasonable manner to serve a substantial state interest in promoting the integrity of capital markets by ensuring a fully informed investing public. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Bulldog Investors, et al. v. Secretary of the Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Hanners, then a Master Sergeant with the Illinois State Police, used his work computer to send an email to 16 fellow employees, including pictures and descriptions of "fictitious Barbie Dolls," depicting stereotypical area residents. After investigation, an EEO officer concluded that, although the email related to race, sexual orientation, parental status, pregnancy, family responsibilities, and the characteristics of gender, no person receiving it reported being offended. The EEO officer recommended discipline for Hanners and three employees who had forwarded the email. The disciplinary review board recommended, and the director imposed a 30-day suspension. Hanners's promotion rating was reduced. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants in his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Hanner did not establish that individuals outside the protected class (Caucasians) received systematically better disciplinary treatment or identify any instance where defendants engaged in behavior or made comments suggesting discriminatory attitude against Caucasians generally or against him because he is Caucasian.View "Hanners v. Trent" on Justia Law

Skydive Arizona sued SKYRIDE for false advertising, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting. SKYRIDE subsequently appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, the jury's actual damages and profits awards, and the district court's damages enhancement. Skydive Arizona cross-appealed the district court's limitation of the permanent injunction to Skydive Arizona, and sought a nationwide injunction against SKYRIDE. The court reversed with regard to the district court's doubling of actual damages, and reinstated the jury's original actual damages award for false advertising, and for trademark infringement. The court affirmed the district court on all other claims. Thus, as modified in actual damages for false advertising, $2.5 million in actual damages for trademark infringement, $2,500,004 in lost profits for trademark infringement, and $600,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and modified in part. View "Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrochi, et al." on Justia Law

The patents are directed to regulating access to content that is delivered through a computer network. Digital-Vending sued three businesses involved in online education, alleging infringement. The district court issued a claim construction order. Two defendants entered into settlements. The third, University of Phoenix, sought summary judgment of non-infringement. Digital-Vending filed a motion for reconsideration of construction of the term "registered user." The district court granted for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment in favor of Phoenix. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the determination was based on erroneous construction, and affirmed in part. View "Digital-Vending Servs. Int'l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc." on Justia Law

MySpace, FOX, and Craigslist sought declaratory judgment that certain patents owned by GraphOn were invalid and not infringed by plaintiffs. The patents related to the ability to create, modify, and store database records over a computer network. The District Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court's claim construction of "database" was reasonable and supported by the context; its overall conclusion that the claims were anticipated or obvious was appropriate. The case was properly decided under sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act and not under section 101. View "MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant sells brokerage and investment products and services, typically to registered broker-dealers and investment advisers that trade securities for clients. One of its services, NetExchange Pro, an interface for research and managing brokerage accounts via the Internet, can be used for remote access to market dynamics and customer accounts. A firm may make its clients' personal information, including social security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers, accessible to end-users in NetExchange Pro. Some of defendant's employees also have access to this information. Plaintiff, a brokerage customer with NPC, which made its customer account information accessible in NetExchange Pro, received notice of the company's policy and filed a putative class action, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligent breach of contractual duties, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed. Despite "dire forebodings" about access to personal information, plaintiff failed to state any contractual claim for relief and lacks constitutional standing to assert a violation of any arguably applicable consumer protection law. View "Katz v. Pershing, LLC" on Justia Law

This lawsuit stemmed from a failed venture between OverDrive, Inc. (OverDrive), a leader in the field of digital media distribution, and Baker & Taylor, Inc. (Baker & Taylor), a leading distributor of physical media, where OverDrive alleged numerous claims against Baker & Taylor contending that Baker & Taylor breached its exclusive distribution agreement with OverDrive and that it was disclosing OverDrive's proprietary trade secrets and confidential information. The court held that OverDrive's conversion, fraud, and "Breach of Contract - Exclusivity and Non-Compete Provisions" claims survived, as did OverDrive's claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and "Breach of Contract - Confidentiality Obligations", which were not challenged in this motion. The court held, however, that all other counts in OverDrive's complaint were dismissed.View "Overdrive, Inc. v. Baker & Taylor, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Barry Gregg challenged a Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) holding that denied him permanent partial disability benefits. Petitioner was injured on the job for Respondent Natchez Trace Electric Power (Natchez) and was unable to satisfactorily return to his job nor earn on-call compensation. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the Commission’s decision to the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the Commission erred in reaching its decision. In the decision adopted by the Commission, the administrative law judge observed that Petitioner made more money after his injury than before he was injured. The appellate court affirmed the Commission’s decision on the basis of a presumption that because of that earning discrepancy, Petitioner failed to prove that he suffered a loss of “wage-earning capacity.” The Supreme Court found that the Commission erred by considering Petitioner’s higher wage post-injury as determinative of his earning capacity. The Court found that Petitioner had rebutted the presumption regarding his earning capacity. Subsequently, the Court reversed both the Commission’s and the appellate court’s holdings and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Gregg v. Natchez Trace Electric Power Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action for defamation and unfair competition by disparagement against defendants, alleging that defendants published defamatory statements about plaintiff on a website. At issue was whether plaintiff's claim against the website operator arising out of allegedly defamatory comments posted to the website was barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. 230. The court held that defendants' added headings and illustrations did not materially contribute to the defamatory nature of the third-party statements and therefore, plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action against defendants, as his claims were clearly barred by the CDA. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was affirmed.View "Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York, Inc." on Justia Law