We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) apply to screening or blocking software and cover more then just pornography; they cover spyware as well
In relation to the application by Protecting Kids the World Over (PKTWO) 2011 EWHC 2720 (Pat), the High Court of England and Wales has allowed an appeal against a decision of a Hearing Officer that found that an alarm notification system for monitoring inappropriate electronic communications fell within the computer program exclusion
Promusicae, a Spanish collecting society holding exploitation rights to musical and audiovisual recordings, was seeking an order before a Spanish court to require Telefónica to disclose the identities and addresses of certain of its customers
In Oracle International Corporation v Contractors Network Ltd 2008 D2008-1493 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the software giant, Oracle International, failed in its bid to have the disputed domain name oraclecontractors
On a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Paris Court of Appeal, Advocate General Ján Mazák has given an Opinion stating that an absolute refusal to allow distributors to sell products on the internet would appear to be disproportionate and a "hardcore restriction"
Putting what appears to be an end to a highly publicized legal battle dramatized in the movie The Social Network, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a $65 million settlement agreement made between brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, their former classmate Divya Narendra, and social-networking website Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Affirming the district court’s judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cleared Facebook of allegations of patent infringement, finding that that the patent in suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because the patentee’s product which embodied the patented subject matter was on sale and in public use more than one year before the filing of the patent
