MAY 1, 2008
COURT RULINGS PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY
FOR CONTENT POSTED BY OTHERS
by Jay Westermeier, Jim Halpert, Ranjit Narayanan and Uma Bansal
The recent court rulings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomates.com, LLC1 <#1> and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.2 <#2> provide specific guidance regarding the scope of immunity under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act for providers of interactive computer services for liability arising from content created by third parties.
The Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) (Section 230(c)) has become a critical defense for e-commerce businesses and other interactive computer service providers (which include ISPs, websites, online services, search engines, and others) respecting claims arising in connection with content provided by others. These cases, involving the hot button issue of housing discrimination, offered both circuits the opportunity to cut back on the broad immunity provided by Section 230. However, the decisions did not do so, and are largely consistent with the body of Section 230 case law that recognizes broad immunity for interactive computer services under this statute.
For our readers, we have prepared a brief overview of the basic immunity rules emanating from the Roommates and Craigslist decisions.
Please read it here .
PLAYING HARDBALL WITH SOFT IP LEGISLATION
by Kevin O'Scannlain and Jim Halpert
Congress is considering legislation to bolster anti-piracy and
anti-counterfeiting laws by greatly increasing penalties in copyright and trademark cases, adding protection for unregistered works, and completely overhauling the structure of federal IP enforcement.
The bill, H.R. 4279, The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007 (PRO IP Act), was introduced in December with bipartisan support and has a better than even chance of passage this year.
This measure likely provides the best chance that law makers will have in the next few years to update copyright and trademark enforcement. For our readers, we have prepared a brief overview of the legislation and its current status in Congress. Please read it here.
March 17, 2008
PATENT ASSIGNMENT CLAUSES ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW, APPEALS COURT RULES
By Jay Westermeier
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important ruling relating to the drafting, interpretation, and enforcement of patent assignment clauses.
The ruling, in DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media LP 1 <#1> , was issued February 13, 2008.
The ruling concerned an employment agreement, but it applies to any agreement containing a patent assignment clause. The most significant aspect of this ruling is that the Federal Circuit, over a strong dissent, ruled that questions relating to patent assignment clauses will be governed by federal law, not state law.
For our readers, we have prepared a brief overview of the issues in this case. Please read it here.