Despite significant strides, the videogame industry still faces several challenges, including piracy and a Canadian tariff that the Entertainment Software Association said “would expose publishers to additional royalties” for music used in games when they're distributed online, said its annual report released Wednesday. The report was released a week after the Supreme Court handed the game industry a major victory, ruling 7-2 that California’s violent videogame law was unconstitutional (WID June 28 p2).
The Court of International Trade has ruled in CBB Group, Inc., v. U.S., that its consideration of cases involving "deemed exclusions" and its ability to order relief, if warranted, is not precluded by CBP's issuance of a Seizure Notice (as it was issued after the case was brought to court) or by the prospect that adjudication of claims will involve the application of copyright law.
Kodak said it was “gratified” that the U.S. International Trade Commission modified key findings, in response to a Kodak request, of an initial recommendation in Kodak’s patent infringement claim against Apple and Research In Motion (RIM). The ITC extended the target date for a final ruling until Aug. 30. The patent at issue relates to a method Kodak invented for previewing images. Kodak initially filed an ITC complaint against Apple and RIM in 2010, asserting that iPhones and RIM’s camera-enabled BlackBerry devices infringe the Kodak patent. Kodak said the patent was validated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in December. The company said it has licensed the patent to companies including LG, MEI/Panasonic, Motorola, Nokia, Olympus, Samsung, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony and Sony Ericsson. Kodak also has federal court actions pending against RIM and Apple in Texas and New York over the same patent and additional infringement claims, it said. The Texas case is to begin Aug. 1.
Garmin didn’t violate federal law by importing products that Pioneer alleged infringed its patents, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled, setting the stage for a possible trial. The ITC earlier said Garmin’s navigation devices didn’t violate Pioneer patents. A separate complaint Garmin filed against Pioneer in February 2010 was stayed pending the outcome of the ITC case. That complaint seeks a declaratory ruling that Garmin products don’t infringe Pioneer’s patents. Pioneer alleged Garmin products infringe three patents granted between 1994 and 2009, including those covering on-vehicle navigation system with an automatic re-initialization function and a system having a user registration function.
The International Trade Administration has initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders below, for certain specified companies listed in the initiation notice.
The International Trade Commission has instituted a section 337 patent-based investigation1 of certain protective cases and components thereof, pursuant to a complaint.
The Justice Department announced on June 23, 2011 that a total of seven individuals and five corporate entities based in the U.S., France, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran have been indicted to date for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to illegally export military components for fighter jets and attack helicopters from the U.S. to Iran. The indictments are for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Iranian Transactions Regulations, etc.
The Supreme Court overturned a Vermont statute that prevented data mining companies from selling patient prescription information to pharmaceutical firms in a 6-3 decision, Thursday. Though Sorrell vs. IMS Health Inc. focused on health care issues, larger privacy implications emerged concerning the extent to which corporations can legally mine customer data. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the six-justice majority that “serious and unresolved” privacy issues remain related to the technological capacity of companies to mine and publish personal information.
The following are details of a June 16, 2011 decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (here) that overturned a lower court ruling and arguments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the classification of certain “CamelBak” back-mounted packs. CAFC agreed with Camelbak that its packs are made up of two different components and are "composite goods" that should be classified by the essential character test, because the two applicable subheadings refer to only part of the subject articles.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has posted an updated version of its spreadsheet of ACE ESAR A2.2 (Initial Entry Types) programming issues.