A federal appeals court ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. finalized the case. According to the decision, the patent belonging to Leader Technologies was invalid. In a lower court ruling made after Leader sued several years ago, a jury agreed that Facebook had infringed on the company's patent.
]]> That patent was for a network that lets users communicate on a massive scale - the bread and butter of what makes Facebook so popular. Leader Technologies was seeking cash compensation for the use of its invention without permission. But since the appeals court found the patent invalid, the patent infringement is no longer an issue.According to patent law, an inventor must seek patent protection within a year of beginning sales of the invention. According to the court, Leader Technologies was demonstrating its software and selling it throughout 2002. The company argued that the invention was not put into use by their software until after December 2002. Leader filed an application for patent protection in December 2003.
The appeals court examined the code of the software that was being sold during the earlier months of 2002 and that which was implemented after December 2002. According to the court, computer scientists often modify these codes. If the codes were substantially different, the patent may remain valid. The two versions of the program had similar coding, according to the court, and this invalidated the patent.
The chairman and founder of Leader Technologies said that his company would ask the federal appeals court to reconsider the ruling. If the court chooses not to do so, the company may appeal to the Supreme Court.
Source: Bloomberg, "Facebook Rival's Patent Called Invalid by U.S. Court," Susan Decker, May 8, 2012
]]>A day after my first comment on this subject, the press carried a story of a rottweiler which attacked a woman in Olney, Maryland who just happened to be walking down the street. The rottweiler did serious damage to her face before being pulled away.
I have done some further, very informal, research and it is clear that these two breeds, pit bulls and rottweilers, account for a very high percentage of serious - including fatal - attacks on humans and on other animals including other dogs and even horses. On the Internet, people who love those breeds defend them vigorously. There is the heartwarming story of the pit bull which risked its life to save the woman on the railroad tracks. I am sure that there must be other heartwarming stories.
However, seen through the lens of reported legal opinions and legal literature, there does not seem to be any question but that these two breeds, when they attack, are particularly dangerous.
I do not know how many people actually read these comments but I would invite anyone who has suffered from a pit bull attack or a rottweiler attack to add their comments.
]]>The suspect was allegedly driving drunk and was taken into custody after his car collided with another vehicle in 2010. When police made a routine search, they allegedly found an unregistered gun in the vehicle's glove compartment.
]]> In the original trial, the man pleaded guilty to drinking and driving charges, but managed to have the evidence regarding the unregistered gun suppressed. Officers argued that they found the weapon during an inspection that they say was warranted. In most DUI arrests, officers search the vehicle because it is possible that they will find open intoxicants or other evidence related to the crime.According to the arresting officers, the man lied about his drinking and had a high level of intoxication. Both of these, according to the authorities, warranted a search. The government agreed with this argument, suggesting that certain crimes allowed for warrantless searches to occur.
The judge who suppressed the evidence wrote that relying on an officer's past experience to determine the legality of a warrantless search is not right. This could, according to the judge, create certain areas of the crime that allow for warrantless searches based on the assumption that the search will be the same as others in the past.
If the lower court's decision is reversed by the appellate court, he will be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition. The man is right to worry that his rights could be violated. Police are required to obtain warrants for a reason.
Source: Legal Times, "D.C. Appeals Court Weighs Warrantless Car Searches," Apr. 24, 2012
]]>Today, May 8, 2012, the local press is carrying a story about a wholly unprovoked attack by a rottweiler in which the animal basically destroyed an innocent woman's face. According to the press, the dog was being walked by its owner and simply attacked another pedestrian. These events took place in Olney, Maryland.
I am not an expert in dogs or dog training and will not offer an opinion as to why these two breeds, rottweilers and pit bulls, show up in court cases with such a distressing regularity. However, given the Court of Appeals' decision in the pit bull matter, I would not be surprised, if the victim of the rottweiler attack sues, for the Courts to apply the same rule to this breed that the Court of Appeals applied in the pit bull case.
]]>With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.
That legal language means that all a plaintiff needs to prove is that he or she or one of their children was bitten by a pit bull and that, all by itself, is sufficient proof of negligence on the part of the owner or of a landlord if the dog was kept in a rental unit. There is no need to prove anything about the character of the dog involved in the attack beyond proving that it was a pit bull.
The new rule would not seem to apply to any other kinds of dogs The rule announced in the Tracey case was limited to pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls. Although it will be interesting to see what the courts do when cases involving other breeds known to be dangerously aggressive such as rottweilers come to their attention.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts that had been involved with the case which had relied upon the old rule. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reviewed many cases in Maryland going back to 1916 involving pit bull attacks and came to the conclusion that enough is enough. In the eyes of the judges, a pit bull is simply a loaded weapon waiting to be discharged. People who own pit bulls often complain that the breed's reputation is undeserved and that they are actually very nice dogs. From a lawyer's prospective, however, there is a long legal history regarding pit bull attacks. One reason that so many of the reported cases concern pit bulls is that if a pit bull does attack, the damages inflicted can be very dramatic given the strength of these animals and the fact that they do not just nip at someone. They are bred to clamp down with their powerful jaws and not let go and that can lead to very serious injuries.
The Tracey decision is an interesting example of how the law changes over time. Courts try to balance the need to provide continuity and therefore predictability to the law with the need to adjust the rules to meet new understandings of the real world outside of the courthouse.
I suspect that there will be some immediate practical issues that dog owners, lawyers, legislators and insurance companies should be thinking about. There could be an effort to have the Maryland state legislature step in and impose a different rule than that reached by the Court of Appeals. Insurance companies will have to think through the implications of a per se rule in regard to liability. Plaintiffs' lawyers who might have turned down cases absent proof of the vicious proclivity of a specific pit bull will probably be pleased now to proceed with cases where the only proof they need is that the attacker was a pit bull. People who own pit bulls or who are considering buying one will have to think about the liability they may be taking on.
]]>When millions lost their jobs during the recession, the remaining workers often worked longer hours for the same or less pay. Some have accused employers of forcing them to work off the clock, while others believe that their positions were misclassified as a job that was exempt from overtime pay. Still others suggest that smartphones provided by their employers have allowed their work to creep into their personal lives in ways that they believe merits pay.
]]> An official with the National Employment Law Project said that employers were squeezing every last bit out of employees during the recession to continue at productivity levels similar to those accounted for before the layoffs. She believes that if employers were forced to pay the overtime that these employees believe they are owed, more people would have been hired to eliminate that overtime.According to reports, some employers are responding by removing smartphone privileges and discontinuing the option of telecommuting. Others are separating managers from other workers so employees better understand if they are eligible for overtime pay.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, these people are exempt from overtime pay: professionals with advanced degrees, workers who do not have easily-trackable hours, key administrators and executives who manage employees.
The Supreme Court is prepared to hear the arguments in a class-action lawsuit made against a pharmaceutical company. According to the suit, sales representatives for the company suggest that they are owed overtime pay because their positions were misclassified as exempt. The company says that the current law makes this classification clear, but according to some, a changing world may require that the laws be changed.
Source: WLTX, "More American Workers Sue Employers for Overtime Pay," Derry London, Apr. 16, 2012
]]>Three emails, sent in late 2008, were at the center of his dismissal. According to him, the messages were influenced by personal matters that had gotten in the way of his work. His psychiatrist agreed and suggested that his behavior would not happen again. This medical evidence was used in the appeals case and may have been the major reason that the three-judge panel is requiring the arbitrator to reconsider the dismissal.
]]> In one of the emails, which was sent to a newspaper, the man allegedly supported political views. Another message included demeaning comments targeting support staff at the SEC. The third email contained a confidential report on suspicious activity.During this time, the man says that he was having trouble in his personal life. His wife had recently become disabled, and he was suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder while his daughter was living with Asperger's Disorder. If these things are true, it is likely that he was in the middle of quite a stressful period in his life.
In 2007, the man had been suspended after emails were sent that indicated he was questioning the patriotism of a well-known billionaire and owner of an NBA team.
According to the man's psychiatrist, he had worked through the many issues plaguing him during the time that he sent the controversial emails. Despite this, the arbitrator would not allow the man to return to his position, but that is why the appeals process exists.
Source: Reuters, "Fired SEC lawyer wins reversal in case over emails," Jonathan Stempel, Apr. 10, 2012
]]>The civil litigation allowed authorities to better understand the scam that was allegedly being conducted by the two individuals who operated under a business named the Cash Grant Institute. Reports show that the company made more than 8 million calls with the assistance of an automated device. The calls would tell listeners that grants from federal, state and local governments were available.
]]> Also, the calls told of private foundations and wealthy individuals that were willing to assist people with grant money. Calls made by the Cash Grant Institute allegedly told listeners that they had already qualified for some of these grants, and they were capable of receiving as much as $25,000. Listeners were directed to a website if they wanted to learn more.In court, the FTC showed how hard it is to receive this sort of money. It then showed that the websites of the defendants did not provide grants. These websites instead led consumers to other websites, where information about the obtainment of grants was provided after a fee was provided. This process likely cost many consumers both time and money.
Of the 8 million calls that were made, 2.7 million were made to individuals on the National Do Not Call Registry. Due to this and the other violations supposedly committed by the company, the two individuals were hit with a $20-million judgment and a $10-million judgment, respectively. They have also been ordered to repay $1.1 million.
Source: Imperial Valley News, "FTC Case Against Deceptive Robocallers Leads to Record $30 Million in Civil Penalties," Apr. 2, 2012
]]>Specifically, a federal appeals court has revived Viacom's copyright lawsuit against YouTube. Within the process, the federal court indicated that a jury could potentially conclude that YouTube may have known it was infringing rights when it allowed the sharing of television programs on its video site. This finding has sent a particular issue of the case back to the district court.
]]> In the proceeding, Viacom argued that YouTube committed "rampant copyright infringement." At first, a lower court ruled that YouTube was protected from copyright infringement claims by the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This provision protects a company from legal responsibility if it does not have actual knowledge of the alleged copyright infringement.At the appellate level, however, Viacom established that YouTube employees had conducted website surveys estimating that about 80 percent of all YouTube videos contained copyright material. Also, Viacom demonstrated that financial advisors from the YouTube side had previously estimated that only one-tenth of the material was authorized.
This evidence suggests that YouTube may have delayed taking down copyrighted material on purpose. As a result, the appeals court found that a doctrine known as "willful blindness" could potentially be applicable. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this doctrine would be relevant if the company's executives made a "deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge." Therefore, the appeals court has returned the case to the lower court for a resolution on whether the legal concept applies to this suit.
This pending case is worth around one billion dollars. As a result, there is no doubt that YouTube has retained a strong litigation team that is well versed in copyright law.
Source: Mercury News, "Viacom's $1B YouTube lawsuit revived by appeals court," Larry Neumeister, April 6, 2012
]]>The two genes at the center of the controversy are BRCA 1 and BRCA 2. In order to test individuals for both types of cancer, Myriad Genetics uses a test that examines extracted DNA for mutated genes. This allows the company to determine if individuals are at a heightened risk for either of the cancers.
]]> A decision made by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2010 disallowed the company from patenting the genes because they were considered, legally, laws of nature. The appeals court's ruling overturned this, based on the concept that the company tests for specific chemical forms of the two genes, not the genes as they appear naturally.This argument was shot down by the Supreme Court. According to reports, patents have been limited by the Supreme Court in recent years. Patents covering abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature have been invalidated by the Supreme Court several times. In a similar case, the Supreme Court recently ruled that another company using gene-related patents to perform medical tests could not hold those patents.
Opponents of the patents are excited by ruling. A staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said that companies should not be allowed to patent something as natural as DNA. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against Myriad in 2009, seeking to have the patents invalidated.
Source: Chemical and Engineering News, "Supreme Court Orders Review Of Gene Patents," Glenn Hess, Mar. 27, 2012
]]>These labels would show rotten teeth, unhealthy lungs and even corpses to get the message across to users. According to U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the mandated labels were unconstitutional. But a District Court in another state ruled the regulatory move by the FDA was legal. This ruling was recently upheld by a federal appeals court.
]]> According to the two courts that sided in favor of the government, the labels would not violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies. The labels would be considered constitutional because they are associated with the prevention of consumer deception. Those who support the new labeling requirements believe that they are a disclaimer, informing consumers of tobacco products of the unhealthy side effects that scientific evidence has proven.The 2009 law that has allowed the FDA to make this move also banned the use of clothing and merchandise by tobacco companies. They are no longer allowed to supply free samples of tobacco and they cannot suggest that tobacco is safer than other products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced a media campaign that will cost $54 million. With this tactic, the CDC is hoping to prevent kids from smoking while encouraging current smokers to drop the habit.
Going up against the federal government in federal court can be intimidating. But this court case could have more rounds to it before it's ultimately settled. The case could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Source: Boston Globe, "Graphic cigarette warning upheld by federal appeals court," Deborah Kotz, Mar. 19, 2012
]]>The civil litigation was filed in March 2010 and has been watched closely. According to the Waterkeeper Alliance, the farm allowed poultry manure to contaminate nearby water sources, which violates the Clean Water Act. The group took samples from water sources in the area and had them tested for the manure and other contaminants.
]]> A former plaintiff in the case discovered a large pile of material on the property while flying overhead. It was believed that this was poultry manure. While this observance was one of the triggers for the suit, it turns out that the pile was likely a legal form of fertilizer.The Maryland Department of the Environment looked into the allegations and found only minor violations at the farm, which have since been corrected. After this, the farm was reportedly in compliance with all rules and regulations.
In spite of this, the plaintiffs still believe the farm was contaminating nearby water sources. According to them, minimal amounts of poultry manure were being released by exhaust fans and then being carried to creeks and drainage ditches by a combination of rain water and tracking on tires or feet. According to the Clean Water Act, this is an infraction.
A U.S. District Court judge believes that, if this is the case, then many -- if not the majority -- of poultry farms on the Eastern Shore are violating the Clean Water Act. The suit will head to court next month. The ruling will impact how numerous farms in the region do business.
Source: Delmarva Now, "'Too many chickens?' We'll find out," Mar. 13, 2012
]]>Due to this, those workers and the advocacy group are considering the option of civil litigation in the form of a class-action lawsuit against the company in question, GLK Foods, a sauerkraut producer.
]]> According to reports, some of the migrant workers did not receive minimum wage while they were employed by the company. Others did not receive overtime pay. Still others were not given the hours that they were promised before coming from Mexico to work.The advocacy group is hoping that its suit will be given class-action status so that other workers who are not named can also be represented. According to an official with the group, as many as 300 workers could be affected by the alleged issues with GLK Foods. A company spokesperson said that no paperwork has been seen to lead the company to believe that a suit has been filed yet.
If the suit succeeds, the workers are hoping to receive the costs of litigation, damages and unpaid wages, which is what they deserve.
Many of the workers paid between $1,000 and $1,500 to receive a federal work visa, to be recruited, and to travel to the manufacturer's facilities. According to the suit, all of the workers were fired approximately two months before the guaranteed end date of their employment.
Source: Green Bay Press Gazette, "Bear Creek sauerkraut manufacturer faces possible class-action lawsuit from migrant workers," Paul Srubas, Mar. 5, 2012
]]>Five years ago, the EPA was allowed by the Supreme Court to regulate carbon dioxide as long as the agency could determine, through the examination of scientific evidence, that it was harmful to the environment. After two years of reviewing evidence, the agency claimed that it could begin to regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases in 2009.
]]> According to reports, appeals were filed separately by several industries, states and organizations. The coal, agriculture and oil industries have all filed appeals in an attempt to curtail EPA's ability to regulate. North Dakota, Utah and Texas have also done this.All of these suits have been combined, so the appellate court can handle the decision more efficiently.
Assisting EPA are the Union of Concerned Scientists, the states of Massachusetts and California, several environmental groups and automakers.
According to critics, EPA did not sufficiently examine the scientific evidence that allegedly convinced the federal agency that carbon dioxide and other gases were harmful to the environment in large quantities. These groups believe that the uncertainty of climate science was not addressed and, if the original court decision is reversed, many environmental regulations could be overturned.
Environmental advocates are worried that this could eliminate one of the major governmental movements affecting climate change.
Suing the federal government can be a tall order, because it seems as if it has endless resources. But the ability to sue and challenge the government is a right held dear by many Americans. People should not be afraid to stand up to something they do not agree with.
Source: High Country News, "All (climate concerned) eyes on D.C. court," Cally Carswell, Feb. 28, 2012
]]>