Articles Posted in 2012

Here is a summary of legal developments in five federal and state court cases last week that involved technology companies, or alleged activities by their users.

Samsung Cries Foul, Claiming Jury Foreman in Apple iPhone $1B+ Lawsuit Was Biased

In a motion filed last Tuesday, Samsung’s lawyers asked U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to set aside the jury’s $1.05 billion iPhone lawsuit verdict in favor of Apple. They alleged that jury foreman and retired computer engineer Velvin Hogan failed to disclose that his former Silicon Valley employer Seagate Technology Inc. sued him in 1993, despite being asked by the judge whether he had been involved in any lawsuits.

Dong v. Holder, US 1st Cir. (10/3/12)
Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

This case required the First Circuit Court of Appeals to decide, for the first time, whether section 1101(a)(42)(B), a statute enacted to pave the way for asylum for victims of China’s coercive population control policies, extends automatically to a spouse of a person forced to undergo an abortion. Petitioner, a Chinese national, petitioned for asylum, seeking to remain in the United States because of, among other things, his wife’s forced abortion. Petitioner argued he was entitled to per se refugee status under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(B) “as a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy.” The immigration judge rejected this argument, and the board of immigration appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review after joining several of its sister circuits in holding that, given the language of the relevant statute and the Attorney General’s reasonable interpretation of it, the agency did not err in refusing to grant Petitioner’s per se refugee status on the basis that the Chinese government had compelled his wife to undergo a forced abortion.

Read More:
First Circuit: No Automatic Asylum for Chinese Men in Abortion Cases, Wall Street Journal

U.S. v. Tasis , US 6th Cir. (10/4/12)
Government Contracts, Health Law, Public Benefits, White Collar Crime

Tasis and his brother ran a sham medical clinic, recruited homeless Medicare recipients who had tested positive for HIV, hepatitis or asthma, paid the “patients” small sums in exchange for their insurance identification, then billed Medicare for infusion therapies that were never provided. During four months in 2006, the Center billed Medicare $2,855,785 and received $827,000 in return. The scheme lasted 15 months, during which Tasis and his collaborators submitted $9,122,159.35 in Medicare claims. An auditor notified the FBI. After an investigation, prosecutors indicted Tasis on fraud and conspiracy claims. Over Tasis’s objection, co-conspirator Martinez testified that she and Tasis had orchestrated a a similar scam in Florida. The court instructed the jury to consider Martinez’s testimony about the Florida conspiracy only as it related to Tasis’s “intent, plan and knowledge.” The jury found Tasis guilty, and the trial judge sentenced him to 78 months in prison and required him to pay $6,079,445.93 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting various challenges to evidentiary rulings.

In a few days, several of us here at Justia will be traveling to “gorges” Ithaca, New York, to attend the 2012 Law Via the Internet Conference at Cornell Law School. The conference marks the 20th Anniversary of the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School, the Internet’s first legal website and the world’s leading online source for free legal information.

Since 1992, the LII has been committed to providing free and open access to the law—a mission aligned with Justia’s own mission to advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.

With its opening reception on Sunday, October 7, the LII is welcoming to this global event nearly 300 advocates of open legal access from around the world.

A former Chairman of the the Advisory Board of a professional mutual fund pleaded guilty today in federal court to a series of charges in a $13 million conspiracy to defraud in investors by falsely claiming that Praetorian Global Fund Ltd. privately owned pre-IPO Facebook and Groupon stock before each of the social media start-ups went public. In reality, the British Virgin Islands-based fund did not.

According to documents in the case, Mattera spent nearly $4 million of approximately $13 million illegally acquired in the conspiracy so that he and his family could have the accoutrements of a luxurious life: buying jewelry, expensive cars, and interior decorating projects.

The U.S. Supreme Court started its term today, hearing oral arguments for Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The case involves the interpretation of a federal statute enacted by the first Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1879—the Alien Tort Statute.

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The statute was all but unused until 1980, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala that the ATS conferred jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by a foreign national against another foreign national over actions that took place overseas. Since that ruling, the ATS has come up a handful of times, but only once previously before the Supreme Court.

In Kiobel, the case the Supreme Court heard today, twelve Nigerian nationals sued three European oil companies for helping the Nigerian government to kill and torture civilians. The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the district court dismissed all claims against the corporate defendants, finding that the ATS imposes liability only against individuals, not corporations. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims.

The Supreme Court originally granted review in October 2011, but only as to the question whether the ATS applies to corporate conduct abroad. Shortly after hearing arguments on that issue in February 2012, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the question whether an ATS claim could proceed when the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred wholly outside of the United States. Today’s oral argument focused on this second question.

Ameranth, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging that Apple’s new Passbook product infringes on Ameranth’s patented technology.

According to the complaint, Ameranth develops products to generate and synchronize menus and hospitality information across fixed, wireless, and web platforms. It claims to have been nominated by Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Award, which it won. The complaint further alleges that Gates described the company as “one of the leading pioneers of information technology for the betterment of mankind.”

Judging from the complaint, this suit seems unlike a typical “patent troll” suits, in which a small company that owns but often does not itself develop innovations sues a major technology company for infringement of obscure patents. These types of suits are commonly seen as using the patent system to hinder, rather than promote, innovation and creativity. In contrast, Ameranth seems to develop its own technologies and innovations, which could suggest the company’s lawsuit is driven by more than a desire for profit.

Kohanowski v. Burkhardt, North Dakota Supreme Court (9/25/12)
Contracts

The future brother-in-law of Jessica Burkhardt tried to sue her on quasi-contract principles for a loan he gave his brother. The money was supposed to be used to help Burkhardt and Kohanowski buy a house together; the brother-in-law says Burkhardt was in the room on the other end of the phone when his brother accepted the terms of the loan. The engagement broke off, and while the brother reaffirmed the debt, the brother-in-law wanted to ensure his ex-potential-sister-in-law paid her share. The lower courts ruled in favor of the in-law, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding the “contract” was subject to the statute of frauds, which was not met here.

Akers v. Prime Succession of Tenn., Inc., Tennessee Supreme Court (9/21/12)
Consumer Law, Injury Law

Defendant, a crematory operator, hid hundreds of uncremated bodies on his property rather than perform cremations he was paid to do. When Plaintiffs, who had received what they thought to be their deceased son’s cremains from Defendant’s crematory, learned about the problems at the crematory, they discovered the body of their son was mishandled and not properly cremated. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for the alleged mishandling of their deceased son’s body. Following a jury verdict for Plaintiffs, the trial court entered judgment against Defendant based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but granted his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Plaintiffs’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and bailment claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) holding Defendant liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of the jury verdict; (2) instructing the jury that they were permitted to draw a negative inference resulting from Defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege during questioning; and (3) dismissing the TCPA and bailment claims.

Read More
Tennessee Supreme Court Affirms Judgment Against Tri-State Crematory Operator

Last week, my colleague Ilana Bergstrom and I attended a session called “Law School for Digital Journalists” at a conference hosted by the Online News Association. Although both of us went to law school, the session seemed like an opportunity to learn about the unique issues that online journalists face. Indeed, the session promised “classes [on] the full range of legal issues that impact the professional lives of digital journalists: copyright, newsroom law, international media law, access and FOIA, and the legal issues involved in launching and running a digital news operation.” The instructors were experts on digital media law, presented in conjunction with the UNC Center for Media Law & Policy, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Both of us found the speakers dynamic, the discussions interesting, and the material familiar yet refreshing. From First Amendment rights to U.K. copyright law to journalism/news business law, the topics covered reiterated the need for an ongoing dialogue between professionals in different fields. As a contributor to Justia’s Verdict and Onward Blog and with aspirations of writing more, I found the level of engagement to be stimulating, combining two of my own passions: writing and the law. Ilana writes for Justia’s Onward Blog and expressed similar satisfaction with the session’s treatment of the union of law and journalism.

As a side note, but of no less importance, we both thoroughly enjoyed the lunch presentation by Pulitzer Prize-winning political animator Mark Fiore. His presentation combined humor, politics, and a no-holds-barred commentary on some oft-overlooked aspects of our society.

Last Tuesday, The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) upheld a decision to deny Apple’s trademark application to register its music feature mark that’s used on iPhones and other Apple products.  The reason?  The mark was confusingly similar to another mark that’s now owned by MySpace.  Both marks consist of two musical eighth notes on an orange background.  MySpace’s mark was originally issued to iLike, a music service that let users download and share music with each other.  However, MySpace bought iLike in 2009, and closed it down a few years later.

Wellons v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, US 11th Cir. (9/19/12)
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner contended that he was denied a fair trial by an impartial judge and unbiased jury because the jury gave the judge and the bailiff inappropriate gag gifts at the conclusion of the trial. Petitioner also contended that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. The court held that it was not unreasonable for the Georgia Supreme Court to find that petitioner did not prove purposeful discrimination by the state in the selection of the jury. The court also held, without condoning the regrettable behavior of either, that both the jury and the judge remained impartial and unbiased throughout the trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.