Perhaps not your typical or average patent, the ‘443 patent has some 135 patent claims, which relate to a proximity authorization unit, a proximity service unit, a method of using the proximity authorization unit, or a system for implementing the proximity authorization unit. The majority of the claims, however, are drafted specifically to cover the devices (i.e., the proximity authorization and service units)… This is not the first time that Disney’s MagicBand wireless communication products have been the target of patent infringement litigation. In April 2015, radio frequency system developer InCom Corporation of Sutter, CA, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) alleging that Disney’s MagicBands infringed upon InCom patents covering audience tracking system technologies. Last August, the two companies agreed to settle the case after InCom had alleged that Disney sold about 10 million MagicBands at $12.95 each after being notified of the potential infringement.
“We are disappointed with the outcome and are considering our options,” a Charter spokesperson told Bloomberg News, which first reported the verdict. A Sprint spokesperson said the company was pleased with the verdict, which represented its “full damage demand.”
Last year, the working group asked for such an extension, but the Advisory Committee could not come to any consensus on whether to grant it. W3C director and inventor of the Web Tim Berners-Lee last week voiced his support for the EME plan, but the future of EME and the working group’s efforts are currently in limbo. Many of the arguments being made today mirror those made in 2013 when the working group first set about developing EME. And in light of this pending decision, we’re resurfacing the op-ed below (from May 2013) that outlines the supporting view.
There are several different forms of intellectual property rights available in the United Kingdom, each with its own formality, level of protection, and duration period. It is crucial that any individual who creates a product, or who believes that they would benefit through protecting their intellectual property ensures that they follow the correct procedure… Many individuals will incorrectly assert a claim for copyright infringement. However, copyright infringement is a niche protection right and is only afforded to ‘artistic output’. No formality is required to register this right in the United Kingdom, which is different than U.S. practice.
Congress worked on the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) for years, yet the final product has a number of rough edges and curiosities. One example is the following sentence:
This section and the amendments made by this section shall not be construed to be a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other Act of Congress
I know regular blog readers just spit out their coffee and are shouting “WTF?!” Of course trade secrets are an intellectual property; so of course the DTSA is an intellectual property law. How could Congress say otherwise?
The short story is that the sentence preserves the Perfect 10 v. ccBill “salient” in Section 230 jurisprudence, which says that Section 230 can apply to state IP laws–including trade secrets. ccBill is only the law in the 9th Circuit, but nevertheless it’s become a crucial part of Section 230 jurisprudence. The DTSA makes trade secrets a federal claim, which would have functionally eliminated the ccBill salient as applied in the trade secret realm. The DTSA’s curious declaration preserves that salient.