Technology

Subscribe to Technology via RSS

The rapid expansion of biometric technologies in sports has created both significant opportunities and complex legal challenges. The proliferation of wearable devices and data collection tools has ushered in what amounts to a “gold rush” for athletes, teams, universities, and companies seeking to use or commercialize biometric data. Heart rate variability, fatigue indicators, movement efficiency, and other performance metrics are increasingly captured in real time and treated as valuable commercial assets.

The practice of serially filing continuation applications through a patent’s lifetime has come under increased pressure in recent years from newly implemented continuing application fees to expanded case law on non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. A somewhat new interpretations of the doctrine of prosecution laches emerging from Sonos, Inc. v. Google, LLC in late 2023, however, that threatened an outright repudiation of the practice late into a patent’s 20-year term. In a post-trial motion, District Court Judge William H. Alsup set aside a $32.5M jury verdict that Google infringed Sono’s 10,469,966 and 10,848,885 patents, finding the patents unenforceable due to a 13-year delay from the priority date to the filing of the continuation applications that resulted in the patents at issue. Recently a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel of Chief District Judge Bumb and Judges Lourie and Prost reversed the finding of laches as unsupported by the evidence nonprecedential decision, stopping short of repudiating the possibility of finding laches for continuation applications filed late into a patent’s 20-year term.

The skies are darkening over the “walled garden” of Apple’s operating system. A Northern District of California court cleared the way for antitrust claims against Apple over its iCloud storage service on mobile devices. The court’s decision to deny Apple’s motion to dismiss in Gamboa v. Apple is a wake-up call for tech companies: courts are ready and willing to scrutinize platform-based restrictions, especially when those barriers are baked into product design. Judge Eumi Lee’s ruling also shows how a change in legal strategy can make all the difference for plaintiffs – or defendants – when charting a course through the early stages of antitrust litigation.

Although Google fought tooth and nail against it, a win for an underdog video game developer means the Google Play Store could likely soon look a lot different for Android users. Google met its match in December when Epic Games, the creator of the hit video game Fortnite, won on all counts in its antitrust suit against the tech titan. However, the fight is far from over: the court is currently determining what exactly the Google Play Store will look like in the future and heard arguments last week over Epic’s proposed injunction. As Judge Donato of the Northern District of California put it during the hearing, despite Google’s argument that “there’s a terrifying world of chaos and energy that’s just around the corner if there’s competition in the app store market,” the judge “just [doesn’t] buy it.” On the other hand, he said Epic’s proposed injunction – which would bar Google from enforcing “contractual provisions, guidelines or policies, or otherwise imposing technical restrictions, usage frictions, financial terms or in-kind benefits that … restrict, prohibit, impede, disincentivize or deter the distribution of Android apps through an Android app distribution channel other than the Google Play Store” – was “too open-ended.”  Proceedings continue in August, and the parties will have opportunity for closing arguments. In the meantime, we revisit the implications and the stakes of the case, beyond just Google and its Play Store.