Virginia just became the second state to pass a comprehensive privacy law, the Consumer Data Protection Act (“CDPA”). Business and privacy professionals should evaluate the ramifications: what does it require, who does it apply to, and what are the penalties?
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC v. BAXALTA INC.
Before Newman, Linn, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware.
Summary: In upholding a $173 million dollar award, the Federal Circuit permitted a damages expert to present a range of reasonable potential royalty rates and found no Seventh Amendment right to jury trial existed for supplemental damages calculated using the jury’s chosen royalty rate and undisputed infringing sales data
RAIN COMPUTING, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: The structure for performing a function of a means-plus-function term may not be a general purpose computer without an algorithm for performing the function.
BITMANAGEMENT SOFTWARE GMBH v. UNITED STATES
Before NEWMAN, DYK, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Summary: The U.S. Navy infringed Bitmanagement’s software copyright by copying its software outside the scope of an implied license.
It’s generally recognized that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can apply to entities outside the European Union. However, scant court rulings guide non-European controllers and processors on this question. The English High Court’s recent decision in Soriano v. Forensic News LLC and others (2021) helps fill the gap.
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined precluded a finding of obviousness based on the same two references in a later proceeding.
JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Before, Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Summary: Recoupment of monetary investment is not the sole factor a court must consider, nor a factor that must be weighed more heavily, when determining entitlement to a defense of equitable intervening rights.
CANFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC. v. MELANOSCAN, LLC
Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB’s refusal to consider presented arguments and evidence can be a misapplication of the law of obviousness.
A recent legal decision held that privacy guarantees in the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) do not prevent discovery in civil litigation. In Will Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., the Central District of California concluded the CCPA does not limit the scope of discovery in civil litigation because it does not restrict the ability to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM, Dkt, No. 158 (C.D. Cal Jan. 22, 2021).
On January 13, 2021, the FTC announced that fertility app developer Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) agreed to a settlement over allegations that the company shared app users’ health information with third-party data analytics providers, including Facebook and Google. The FTC originally filed the complaint against Flo after 2019 media reports alleged that the app used by more than 100 million consumers had shared customer information despite representations that Flo would keep such information private.
