This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The defendant, Kalita Mukul Creative, ran community-focused newsletters. The defendant published a bio on Sewell and included one of McDermott’s photos–apparently sourced from an unrelated Instagram account (possibly another infringer, or perhaps that account has a fair use defense?). Defendant’s financial benefit.
At this point, the plaintiffs are arguing that their claims belong in state court because their allegations are too weak to support Article III standing for federal court. The court also says Amazon’s permission to write reviews may conflict with the trademark restriction, another misreading. the not-as-a-mark doctrine).
She got less than 2,000 votes in the June 2024 primary. The TOS doesn’t impose such a duty: “nothing in the Terms promises or guarantees that Defendant will work with a user to restore access to an account at all, let alone on a specific timeline. 2024 WL 4565091 (N.D. Her claims go nowhere. Meta Platforms Inc.,
Toyota brought a SAD Scheme case against 103 defendants before Judge Daniel in the Northern District of Illinois. If these justifications sound familiar, it’s because these are the generic rotely-made defendant-unspecific allegations that are copied and pasted into most SAD Scheme complaints. .” Seriously, Toyota?
Despite the busy 2024 litigation year against companies offering AI platforms in 2024, significant intellectual property questions remain unanswered as the calendar turns to 2025. 2025 may bring some clarity to the legal status of AI, including through highly anticipated guidance from the U.S.
The court (correctly) calls this implementation a “sign-in-wrap” (ugh), but still goes through the standard analysis to identify consumers’ manifestation of assent. The court hunts for evidence that consumers had actual knowledge of the terms, but comes up dry. 2024 WL 4529263 (W.D. Case Citation : Kuhk v.
Help pick the 15 legal tech startups that will get to compete at the eighth-annual Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW 2024. 14-17, 2024, in Chicago. This release is scheduled for January 2024. Our goal is to serve 2-4 cases per month by the end of 2024, with the projected revenue of $2-4M/year. We cover all the tech.
The court’s reaction is predictable if chilling. Rather than turning the analysis on formation issues, the court strikes down Ticketmaster’s efforts as unconscionable–and the weak formation practices exacerbate the unconscionability problem. I still teach the 2007 Ticketmaster v. Case Citation : Heckman v.
By guest blogger Tyler Ochoa This month, the Copyright Claims Board released its quarterly report of “Key Statistics,” covering the period from June 2022 (when it began operation) through September 2024 (9 quarters, or 27 months). Here are a few highlights from the report: 1.
In a ruling with potential implications for other pending generative artificial intelligence (AI) copyright cases, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH & West Publishing Corp. The parties then filed renewed motions for summary judgment in October 2024.
At this point, I’ve not paid close attention to the proceedings because everything at the district court level is a rehearsal for the inevitable appellate court review. I’m sure the appellate court will be eager to docket this one. A reminder: this lawsuit is a battle royale. They will need to clear their calendar.
The defendant Binello made a popular Roblox game called MeepCity allegedly visited 1B times: The game included a feature that allowed users to gather and talk with each other in a pizzeria, which included a piano that users could play to earn points within the game. On this basis, the court distinguished VHT v.
2024 In an industry ruled by trends, the nature of quiet luxury brands radically challenges how we view usage of trademarks in fashion. Ruling on trademark rights over colors, the Supreme Court in Qualitex v. US courts typically require a heavy burden of proof to establish distinctiveness of a trademark. By Devangini Rai LL.M.
299 limits joinder in patent cases to defendants who infringe using “the same accused product or process.” ” Congress enacted this requirement to restrict patent trolls who were filing lawsuits against defendants who had nothing in common but the allegation that they were infringing the same patent. 35 U.S.C. §
The court summarizes the allegations: Roblox has a virtual currency designed for use on its platform called “Robux.” The court is unpersuaded. The court doesn’t appreciate this argument: these are children we’re talking about. 2024 WL 1268420 (N.D. March 26, 2024). Negligence. Case Citation : Colvin v.
Microsoft’s filings made some unredacted disclosures about Medina that were repeated in an unredacted court opinion, and those documents appeared on several websites that publish court documents. He then sued the court document repository websites (and other defendants) for defamation, false advertising, and more.
The plaintiff sued 163 defendants for online marketplace sales and got an ex parte TRO, including Amazon account freezes. After a couple of defendants showed up, the judge denied a TRO extension because of the possible lack of merit in the plaintiff’s infringement allegations. Then, the case fell apart. Proximate Damage.
In my prior post on this case , I covered how the court denied efforts to enjoin the Utah law on Section 230 and dormant commerce clause grounds. And as expected, the court indeed enjoined the law on First Amendment grounds. The court rejects the state’s evidence about the purported harms of social media usage.
“Plaintiff alleges Defendants downloaded and copied Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials from YouTube, and then re-uploaded infringing versions of Plaintiff’s copyrighted media content to their YouTube channels.” ” Viral DRM sued 20 defendants enumerated in a Schedule A and got an ex parte TRO. Jurisdiction.
As we previewed in our 2024 AI year in review , one of the big areas to watch in 2025 will be how much discovery courts are prepared to order into the inner workings of AI companies, especially in the face of arguments that discovery would reveal trade secrets or would be overbroad in cases based on specific claimed works.
24 CV 01514-CM, 2024 WL 4711729 (S.D.N.Y. To plead a violation of Section 1202(b), a copyright holder must also establish that the defendant knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that their actions would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal” copyright infringement. Raw Story Media, Inc. OpenAI Inc. , Ice Portal, Inc., 736, 214 L.
After hearing this allegation at least twice, the Court instructed plaintiffs’ counsel to go present proof of such a bribe and to specifically subpoena the banks that were allegedly involved in laundering the bribe. This is the basic reason that summary judgment, at long last, must be GRANTED to Meta defendants.
[Note: the defendants in this case are enumerated on an “Annex A” instead of “Schedule A.” Judge Harjani says the plaintiff’s papers contain “a fair amount of conclusory language about a logical relationship among all defendants but not much, if any, facts to actually support that relationship.”
Google LLC , 2024 WL 3427161 (D. July 16, 2024) Lance Benedict is a musician. “A defendant does not “use” a plaintiff’s mark to [infringe] when the defendant merely provides a search engine service that allows third parties to search using the plaintiff’s mark. 2024 WL 3421685 (Mass. Benedict v.
Samuels sued the Lido DAO, but a shadowy entity (Dolphin CL, LLC) defended the Lido DAO on the grounds that the DAO wasn’t an entity at all; it is just software code. The court is not persuaded: “Lido’s alleged actions are not those of an autonomous software program—they are the actions of an entity run by people.”
The plaintiffs claim that purchasing the defendant’s initial loss leader offering caused the plaintiffs to subscribe to a hidden monthly recurring charge. Invoking the arbitration clause in the TOS, the defendant sought to send the lawsuit to arbitration. The 2024 district court opinion. Case Citation : Seneca v.
The user took the matter to court (pro se), where the lawsuit failed: Contract Breach. “Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that Defendant was contractually prohibited from removing her Google account.” “Defendant Google is a private business, not a state actor.” July 26, 2024).
Brett Trout In a recent decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (CoA) dated December 20, 2024, the court underscored the critical importance of precise patent drafting. The case involved Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., The patent claims covered a string of amino acids.
.” The Rehabilitation Act “does not apply to defendants who are private entities that do not receive federal funds.” ” With respect to the Unruh Act, the plaintiffs “alleges no facts to support that the Meta defendants engaged in intentional discrimination.” 2024 WL 3325389 (9th Cir.
Tomelleri (who has appeared on this blog before ) illustrates fishes (see court exhibit on the right). Note: this case is functionally moot because the defendant, Sunfrog, is already defunct. The question on the table is supposed to be: did the defendant take a legally significant action that resulted in the infringement?
had been mostly invisible in court opinions. recently started showing up more in court opinions–but not necessarily in a good way. of their cases in state court. I can only see the cases filed in or removed to federal court, and only then when the cases trigger one of my alerts. 2024 WL 1430251 (C.D.
Nintendos Legal Crusade Between 2022 and 2024, Nintendo launched numerous lawsuits and legal actions, shutting down fan projects, modding communities, and emulator developers. This legal onslaught raises important questions about patent enforcement, fair competition, and the broader impact on the gaming community.
The court concludes that this as a surprisingly easy Section 230 dismissal: ICS Provider. “Courts within the Second Circuit have routinely found that social media websites and online matching services are interactive computer services.” ” Cites to Mosha v. Publisher/Speaker Claims. Publisher/Speaker Claims.
The court says, per Taamneh v. Twitter , “the Court [referring to himself in the third person] paid insufficient heed to the requirement that Kelly Toys provide proof of the Alibaba Defendants’ knowledge.” The Court’s contempt Order was therefore improper under Rule 65(d)(2)(C) and must be vacated.
The defendants sought to overturn the jury verdict. Fair Use Nature of Use “Defendants’ use of the tattoos was clearly commercial.” This was evident with Defendants’ “Create-A-Superstar” feature which enabled a user to take the tattoos and apply them to their own custom wrestler avatar. ” Really?
This includes survivors, witnesses, criminal defendants, and convicts. Many trauma-informed practices have already been implemented in court systems that deal with sensitive populations, such as juveniles or military veterans. Judge Pratts tips are valuable not only for those working in the courts but also for lawyers and their staff.
Here’s the court’s entire Section 230 “analysis” (as opposed to its recap of the parties’ arguments): plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts with regard to each defendant to allege viable causes of action under a products liability theory.
I believe that’s because the court and parties are battling over redactions. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants knew they were collecting biometric data from Illinois citizens, including children, in violation of Illinois state law.” The court shrugs its shoulders. 2024 WL 3842563 (W.D.
The plaintiff doesn’t indicate whether or not WGNAFM’s photo usage was licensed, but the court seemingly wouldn’t care if it was. Breitbart , the court says that “reposting” on “social media” is enough to find copyright infringement in a default judgment. All excellent points. It no-showed.
Take a look at the numbers: Amazon restrained $155k+ of the defendant’s money. That’s just for one of the many defendants in this case. I wonder if the court realized just how much money would be affected by its earlier orders? “Defendant admits that it profited $32.30 Would fair use apply?
The plaintiff claims that the defendant company is engaging in a form of corporate identity theft, trading on its license number, and that Angi promoted the interloper as a certified contractor without doing proper verification. Angi unsuccessfully defends on Section 230 grounds. Encor Solar LLC, 2024 WL 4062051 (D.
The US government brought a civil lawsuit against the defendants for 203 violations. A reminder that if the US government had prosecuted the defendants for violating the Clean Air Act, Section 230 would have been irrelevant (it doesn’t apply to federal criminal prosecutions). The defendants sell this hardware. It doesn’t work.
The court dismisses Bloom’s lawsuit against US Weekly. The court says these allegations aren’t enough to satisfy the actual malice standard. Unfortunately, the photo US Weekly used wasn’t of Zilis, it was of the plaintiff Amanda Bloom, a former roommate of Zilis. Defamation.
The plaintiff sued many defendants. The court dismisses the claims on their prima facie elements as well as Section 230. The court dismisses the claims on their prima facie elements as well as Section 230. Moreover, other courts have reached the same conclusion.” State Dep’t of Health, 2024 U.S.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content