On October 12, 2020, the California Attorney General published a Third Set of Modified Proposed Regulations (“Modified Regulations”) even though the final text of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) regulations are already in full effect. In sum, the Modified Regulations only make minor edits to the final CCPA regulations. They provide additional guidance on how to implement the CCPA’s right to opt-out of sale of personal information and modify the text related to how authorized agents can submit data privacy requests on behalf of consumers.
ANTENNASYS, INC. v. AQYR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Before, O’Malley, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Summary: The Federal Circuit held that claim construction issues in a contract dispute did not meet the “substantiality” prong of the Supreme Court’s Gunn v. Minton test for independent federal jurisdiction.
On September 25, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the California Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), about which we reported here.
UPDATE: On September 25, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the California Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), about which we reported here.
On August 31, 2020, the California Legislature passed the Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), which regulates the privacy and security aspects of Direct-to-Consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing and testing companies. If Governor Gavin Newsom signs GIPA into law, it will take effect on January 1, 2021.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] – PRECEDENTIAL
Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Summary: Evidence of inducement for a method of administering a drug is not limited to the indications of use on a generic drug label. Promoting a generic drug as equivalent to branded drug may be sufficient to induce infringement of a method covering use for which the generic drug is not indicated.
BIOGEN MA INC. v. EMD SERONO, INC.
Before Newman, Linn, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court of the District of New Jersey.
Summary: A known method of administering a known product made by a new process is not novel.
The California Legislature has delayed its plans to expand the scope of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and make all of its provisions apply to personal information related to business-to-business communications and transactions and human resources data.
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: A party joined to an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) is not statutorily estopped from raising in district court any invalidity grounds other than those that were instituted in the IPR, because the joining party cannot raise additional grounds during the IPR.
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in Van Buren v. United States to consider whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose. Oral argument before the Supreme Court will be held on November 30, 2020.
On August 20, 2020, former Uber Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan was charged with obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony for knowingly concealing a hack of Uber in 2016. Based on Sullivan’s complaint, individuals and corporations can learn valuable lessons in responding to cyber intrusions by considering: (1) what Sullivan allegedly did wrong; (2) what corporate officers are required to do after a cyber intrusion; and (3) how a company should prepare in anticipation of a possible intrusion.
