FederalCourt
Latest
Court rules Stingray use without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment
Today, the Washington DC Court of Appeals overturned a Superior Court conviction of a man who was located by police using a cell-site simulator, or Stingray, CBS News reports. The court ruled that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement tracked down the suspect using his own cell phone without a warrant.
Airspace rights still unclear after drone lawsuit dismissed
Where exactly you're entitled to fly your drone in the US without fear of it being blasted out of the sky continues to be a legal gray area, after a judge dismissed another case brought against self-proclaimed "drone slayer" William Merideth. The Kentucky resident was originally charged in 2015 for firing a gun within city limits, shooting down David Boggs' Phantom 3 quadcopter in the process. The charge was dropped after a judge ruled the drone invaded Merideth's privacy since it was over his land, but Boggs subsequently sued Merideth in federal court seeking damages of $1,500 to cover the cost of the Phantom 3. This case was recently dismissed on something of a technicality, though, leaving a key legal question around airspace rights unanswered.
Apple won't have to pay $533 million to an iTunes patent troll
It's taken two years, but Apple has finally reversed a patent ruling that required it to pay $533 million in damages to a little-known technology developer. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out a jury verdict that had judged Apple to have violated intellectual property owned by Smartflash -- specifically its copy protection, payment systems and storage patents -- with its iTunes software.
Federal judge throws out evidence obtained by 'stingray' trackers
A federal judge has taken a stand against the use of "stingray" -- cell phone baiting surveillance devices used by the police and other government agencies. District Judge William Pauley decided to suppress evidence obtained by the stingray setup, ruling earlier this week that the defendant Raymond Lambis, charged in connection to a drug trafficking probe, had his rights violated when surveillance equipment was used without a warrant. The Drug Enforcement Administration used the tracker to find Lambis' apartment by pinging the defendant's cell phone, revealing his location down to the apartment number. "Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote in the ruling.
Federal court rules NSA's data collection program is illegal
The US court of appeals has ruled that the NSA's bulk phone data collection wasn't authorized under law. The metadata surveillance program has been scrutinized ever since Edward Snowden made its existence public almost two years ago. But no ruling has deemed it unlawful until now. NSA's program "exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized," wrote one of the three judges on the panel on the 2nd circuit court of appeals.
Judge dismisses Apple vs. Motorola in its entirety, companies unable to prove damages
After tentatively shutting down (and reviving) Apple and Motorola's legal spat, Judge Richard Posner has put the lid on the case once and for all, dismissing it in its entirety this evening. Neither company was able to satisfy the Judge's call for proof of damages, causing him to dismiss the case and block both firms from refiling claims. "It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages." Posner said, "This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today." Posner's dismissal with prejudice means that Apple and Motorola's claims cannot be brought before the court again. Guess they'll have to find something else to fight over, eh? Check out the Judge's full opinion after the break.
HTC drops federal appeal of ITC complaint exonerating Apple, more arrows remain in the quiver
HTC was understandably upset when its first ITC complaint against Apple was tossed out. The company must have since decided that it has bigger fish to fry, as it was just granted a motion to dismiss its federal-level appeal. The choice isn't a defeat so much as an acknowledgment that other disputes are underway which stand a better chance of surviving scrutiny. As it stands, HTC already has more appeals either on deck or in progress that it will more likely want to pursue, such as the dispute over using Google's patents as well as its off-again, on-again acquisition target S3 Graphics' loss at the ITC last year. Apple, naturally, hasn't been waiting around.
Judge puts the kibosh on one Apple vs. Motorola patent trial (maybe, tune in next week)
In an (all too rare, if you ask us) occurrence, US Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has tentatively decided to dismiss an Apple patent infringement case against Motorola. Both sides were seeking damages in the case, and the decision to dismiss it "with prejudice" would mean neither side could refile these claims again. According to his ruling in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, neither side could credibly establish its damages so he's putting a stop to things before it ever goes in front of a jury. That said, he will issue a more in depth ruling next week and noted that he could still change his mind. For our sanity alone we hope he does not, although it ultimately won't matter much with so many other smartphone patent lawsuits involving these companies filling up dockets in courts around the globe.
Apple files (again) for a preliminary ban against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
If you found yourself longing for the minor tweaks Samsung made to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany earlier this year, you may be in luck: Apple's filed for a preliminary injunction against the slate stateside. It isn't the first one, either, Cupertino filed something similar back in February, though it didn't quite pass legal muster. After gaining some headway earlier this week, Cook's crew is in for round two, according to FOSS Patents, asking for Judge Koh to rule in their favor without a new hearing. Concerned consumers, however, can sidestep the whole mess by simply opting for an injunction-exempt Galaxy Tab 2. Details and speculation can be found at the source link below, just in case you aren't already sick to death of the whole Samsung / Apple spat.
Apple gets another bite, wins appeal to pursue preliminary injunction against Samsung
We'll forgive you if you've forgotten, given the myriad Apple/Samsung legal shenanigans, but back in February, Apple attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction against Samsung to prevent the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and a few phones from being sold in the US. Samsung emerged victorious, as the district court denied Cupertino's request because it questioned the validity of a couple of Apple's patents and didn't see how Apple would be irreparably harmed if it failed to get Sammy's products banned. Naturally, Tim Cook's crew appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has decided to give Apple another crack at obtaining an injunction. The CAFC upheld the lower court's ruling as to three of the four patents, but found fault with the District Court's holding that Apple's tablet design patent had substantial questions of validity. Essentially, the lower court held that Apple's patent was likely no good because it was an obvious design in light of two tablets that were created long before Apple patented the iPad's look. However, the CAFC found that one of the previous slate's asymmetrical bezel and lack of an unbroken, all-glass surface (among other differences) were sufficient to render Apple's patent non-obvious. Basically, the appellate court found that the District court "construed the claimed design too broadly," and remanded the issue so that the district court could complete its preliminary injunction analysis. So, Apple's cleared a big hurdle towards getting the Galaxy Tab 10.1 off the US market, but the company's still got to persuade Judge Koh that it'll be irreparably harmed without the injunction. This decision assures even longer legal proceedings, but given how well both of these tech titans are doing these days, we're pretty sure they can afford the attorneys' fees.
Chanel counterfeiters beware: US federal court orders domain names seized and de-indexed
We're well versed in the art of the gadget KIRF 'round these parts, but counterfeiting's a problem faced by the fashion world, too. Chanel filed suit in federal court to stop hundreds of websites from selling KIRFs of its gear, and the judge recently ordered the seizure and transfer of those domain names to GoDaddy to hold in trust until the case is resolved. It was also decreed that they be stricken from the indices of search engines and social media -- including, but not limited to Bing, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. So it seems the federal courts have obtained the ability to order that legal remedy (the de-indexing) be given by companies not party to a lawsuit (Google, et al), though we know of no law granting it such powers. Of course, we can't know for sure until one of the accused copycat sites decides to lawyer up and fight back. Until then, fashion KIRFs beware: the feds can apparently wipe every trace of you from the internet.
AT&T asks court to dismiss lawsuits filed by Sprint and C Spire Wireless
Well, look at Ma Bell now, wishing it'd all just go away. Tied up in lawsuits, the company has filed motions to dismiss the two complaints brought by Sprint and C Spire Wireless (formerly Cellular South), which seek to block AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile. In the filings, it's argued that the two providers represent their own interests, rather than that of the public. AT&T further reveals that C Spire had pursued private negotiations prior to the lawsuit, where the regional provider agreed to support the merger "if AT&T would agree not to engage in facilities-based competition in Mississippi." Ma Bell goes on to state, "This inappropriate proposal confirms that what Cellular South fears is competition, not lack of competition." Given the latest maneuver (which smacks heavily of PR spin), there's no doubt that lawyers for Sprint and C Spire will have a bit of homework for the weekend.
Cellular South files antitrust lawsuit against AT&T over proposed T-Mobile takeover
Sprint and Uncle Sam aren't the only ones taking issue with AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile, because Cellular South has a bone to pick, as well. Yesterday, the provider filed a lawsuit against AT&T in a DC federal court, charging that its $39 billion merger with T-Mobile would violate US antitrust laws. "The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile is anti-competitive, and will result in consumers facing higher prices, less innovation, fewer choices and reduced competition," Cellular South said in a complaint. The company went on to argue that legal evaluation of the merger must incorporate the perspectives of smaller, regional carriers who, like Cellular South, will "find it harder to secure both wireless devices at competitive prices and times and nationwide roaming." An AT&T spokesman declined to comment on the case, but you can find more details about it at the source link below, or in the full press release, after the break.
Time Warner Cable takes Viacom to court over its TWCable TV iPad app; Viacom responds
While there's been a lot of talk about whether or not Time Warner has the right to include feeds of cable channels it carries in the new TWCable TV app, besides the company's voluntary removal of several networks there's been very little action until now. Time Warner Cable announced this afternoon it has filed a request in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a declaratory judgement regarding Viacom's cable networks. Time Warner continues to maintain its carriage agreements give it the right to allow subscribers access on any screen in their home, not just the TV and is apparently ready to prove that in court -- or at least drive Viacom, Discovery, Fox and other complaining networks towards more favorable negotiations. The app added seven more channels earlier today, while we wait for Viacom's side of the story you can check out the press release after the break or Time Warner's official blog to understand its stance in full. Update: Viacom has responded, saying Time Warner "blatantly grabbed the rights that their competitors have negotiated in good faith to obtain" forcing it to file a lawsuit of its own. The gloves are officially off -- check the full text after the break, or a PDF of Viacom's complaint linked below.
Clearwire wins initial round against Sony Ericsson in trademark bout
The fight isn't over, but round one has certainly gone to Clearwire. Last month, Sony Ericsson sued the company for a logo that it thought to be too similar. And, indeed, they're both vaguely swirly green blobs (that's SE's orb on the left). However, Clearwire has issued a statement indicating that a federal court isn't so concerned, finding "insufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion and no irreparable harm," denying a motion for a preliminary injunction. It's unlikely that the case will go much further from here, but the final bell certainly hasn't rung just yet. The full statement is below.
Limewire ordered to disable 'all functionality,' company pledges to keep operating... somehow (video)
Today marks another sad day for the three people out there using P2P sites to share open source software and copyright-free materials -- plus all the other millions of people downloading illegal stuff. The RIAA has been involved in a legal battle against popular P2P client Limewire for years now and back in June it finally got the verdict it was looking for. A federal court found that the Lime Group, which maintains and distributes the software, did not take "meaningful efforts to mitigate infringement." Now, that same court has issued an injunction ordering that Lime Group disable "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality." So, you know, pretty much turn the thing off. We're not sure when that'll happen, but we're guessing soon, and while a Lime Group representative indicated a desire to move forward and work with the record labels that seems awfully optimistic. You see, the court still hasn't decided how much the Group owes in damages, and we think that rather than working with them going forward the RIAA would prefer to put this lime in a coconut and, well... [Thanks to everyone who sent this in, image courtesy Rookie Cookie]
Apple facing patent lawsuit over iPhone keyboard
It may be a little slow out of the gate, but Florida-based SP Technologies is now taking aim at Apple over the iPhone's touchscreen keyboard, claiming that it infringes on a patent it has held since 2004. According to MacNN, that patent describes a "method and medium for computer readable keyboard display incapable of user termination," and the company is saying that Apple was "willful and deliberate" in its alleged infringement of it. As a result, SP Technologies is demanding that Apple pay "reasonable royalties" for each iPhone already sold, along with an injunction to prevent any further use of the allegedly offending intellectual property by Apple. No word on a next move but, as with most of these lawsuits, it'll be up to a federal court in Texas to sort things out.[Via TUAW]
BlackBerry versus BlackJack: RIM sues Samsung for trademark infringement
Thoroughly annoyed by Samsung's entry into the smartphone sector with its new BlackJack, RIM (maker of the BlackBerry, of course), has sued Sammie for trademark infringement in US Federal Court in Los Angeles. Oh, RIM, we understand that you want to protect your trademark over the BlackBerry name. But do you really, honestly, believe that just because another smartphone has the name "Black" in it, that throngs of people will rush out to buy the BlackJack when they meant to buy the BlackBerry? Or is this just a ploy to squeeze some money out of Samsung when you two finally settle this dispute? Yeah, that's what we thought. (Needless to say, Cingular must find this whole thing pretty hilarious.)[Via Textually]
Federal judge caught playing solitaire during a trial
We'll abstain from the card-related puns. On last Saturday, the New York Daily News reported that Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, was busy playing computer solitaire while overseeing the case against John "Junior" Gotti. The allegation comes from radio host Curtis Silwa, who noticed her gaming habits while testifying on the witness stand. Silwa was almost killed at a 1992 shooting that Gotti is accused of planning. Silwa said he has seen Scheindlin gaming during the last two trials, but did not speak up "until Scheindlin dumped cold water on the government's third try" to convict the mobster. Silwa is asking that Scheindlin should step down from the case. Mayor Bloomberg in February fired a low-paid office worker after spying a game of Solitaire left on the person's desktop. It'll be interesting to see how a high-paid judge with political clout is reprimanded (if at all) for her in-trial shenanigans.[Thanks, Harold]
