For several months, Facebook has reportedly been developing and testing a “Want” button, to supplement its ubiquitous “Like” button. Just last week, Facebook announced that several companies will be testing the new “Want” button and showed what the button would look like.

On October 12, shortly after the release of its new highly anticipated “Want” button, Facebook was sued by a company called CVG-SAB LLC for alleged trademark infringement and other claims over its “Want” marks, including U.S. Trademark No. 4,200,861 and No. 3,923,229, among others. The company, better known by the name under which it does business—Want—operates a social and interactive site that connects people with products they have, like, or desire.

The complaint alleges that “Facebook introduced a WANT Button for services that are effectively the same as, or at least closely related to, Plaintiff’s WANT Button services.” It further argues that Facebook’s use of the button will and has already caused confusion and violates the federal Lanham Act, Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, and state common law.

Apple, Inc. was hit with a patent infringement lawsuit Thursday (read it below) alleging that the company’s iPad 3 tablets and Macbook Pro computers violate four light emitting diode (LED) patents. The case was filed in in federal court in Delaware by claimed patent holder LED Tech Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company based in Tyler, Texas, the city that is a patent litigator’s combat zone.

Each of the four infringement claims, the complaint charges, involve Apple “products utilizing pulse-width modulation signals to drive light-emitting diodes.” Apple’s newest iPad a/k/a the ‘iPad 3,’ and Macbook Pro are named specifically.

Happy Friday! We’re back from Cornell’s Law via the Internet conference just in time for our weekly writers’ picks.

Dept of Texas, Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Texas Lottery Commission, US 5th  Cir. (10/10/12)
Constitutional Law, Gaming Law

Plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations licensed to conduct bingo games, filed suit challenging restrictions on the Texas Bingo Enabling Act (Bingo Act), Tex. Occ. Code 2001.001 et seq. Plaintiffs challenged provisions in the Bingo Act that prohibited charities from using the money generated by conducting bingo games for lobbying activities or to support or oppose ballot measures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions. The court reversed and held that the Bingo Act’s restrictions on the use of bingo proceeds for political advocacy were permissible conditions on a government subsidy and did not operate to penalize speech.
Read More:
Court Rejects ‘Citizens United’ Arguments in Texas Bingo Case, Wall Street Journal Law Blog

NE Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, US 6th Cir. (10/11/12)
Constitutional Law, Election Law

Ohio requires that provisional ballots be cast in the correct precinct, with a completed voter affirmation, making no exception for wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation ballots caused by poll-worker error, O.R.C.  3505.183(B)(4)(a)(ii)–(iii) and (B)(4)(b)(ii). A 2010 consent decree required the counting of certain wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots where poll-worker error caused the nonconformity and the voters used the last four digits of their social security number for identification to cast their ballots. The ballot of a provisional voter using any other form of identification (e.g., current photo identification, current utility bill, paycheck) would not be counted.The district court denied a motion to vacate the decree and entered a preliminary injunction requiring the counting of all wrong-precinct and deficient-affirmation provisional ballots to remedy systemic exclusion of nonconforming ballots caused by poll-worker error. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the wrong-precinct remedy and reversed the deficient affirmation remedy and remanded for the district court to address the equal protection issue created by the consent decree’s provision for counting deficient-affirmation ballots by voters providing social security numbers, and a motion to modify the consent decree in light of the equal protection concerns raised by the consent decree’s differential treatment of provisional ballots.
Read More:
Court rejects Ohio voting law on tossing ballots filed in wrong precincts, CBS News

Apple was sued for copyright infringement on Wednesday by Swiss fashion and beauty photographer Sabine Liewald. Her lawsuit (below) charges the technology company with unauthorized use of her copyrighted “Eye Closeup” photo in an advertising campaign for Macbook Pro computers, related materials, and a keynote speech, without first obtaining legal rights to license it from her New York City agent.

According to the complaint, Apple actually “requested a high-resolution file” of this specific photograph “for ‘comping’ (or layout) purposes only.” After reviewing it, Liewald maintains, the Cupertino-based company told her agent “that it did not intend to use the photograph” in its Macbook Pro ad campaign, but went ahead and did so anyway.

The 2012 Law Via the Internet Conference at Cornell Law School has concluded, and the Justia attendees have headed back to sunny California. By every measure, I think the conference was a success. It stimulated thought and provoked discussion; it disseminated new ideas and revisited old ones; and it brought together a group of people with similar objectives and diverse experiences.

Here are some of my own thoughts and reactions:

• Innovators in the legal field must collaborate and share their knowledge, discoveries, and experiences to achieve their goals because the law is, by its very nature, resistant to change or disruption.
• We often use technology for silly purposes before—and sometimes well before—using it for nobler and more meaningful goals.
• Generally we have to develop a product according to what its users want, even if that isn’t what we think they should want.
• Ithaca is beautiful, cold, and very remote.

Although I, of course, am biased toward thinking that Justia’s own Tim Stanley had the most outstanding presentation, I was impressed with all of the people who presented at the sessions I attended. Richard Susskind and Clay Shirky—the two Justia-sponsored keynote speakers—invigorated the conference with their enthusiasm and vision, and I thought their presentations provided a theme and an energy that resurfaced continually throughout the various sessions of the conference.

Thanks to LVI 2012, I learned a great deal about the great work of my colleagues and peers, met some really inspiring people, and affirmed my own belief that the law should be freely available to all.

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.