Lyft’s IPO Debacle and the Challenges of Unprofitable Unicorns

On March 29, 2019, the popular ride-sharing startup Lyft officially debuted on the Nasdaq Stock Market, capping off more than a year of speculation and supposed investor fervor over access to the next tech unicorn. Opening at a price of $87.24 a share – 21 percent above the initial public offering (IPO) price of $72 offered to pre-IPO investors – the market gave the company an approximate valuation of $30 billion. Within the next few Continue Reading →

The Defend Trade Secrets Act and Religious Institutions

In 2016 Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) in an effort to, among other things, further unify trade secret law.[1]  The DTSA was based largely on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) and created a federal civil action for those seeking redress in federal court for the misappropriation of a trade secret.  Despite this derivative relationship between the federal and state statutes, there are numerous differences in language between the DTSA and UTSA.  However, Continue Reading →

STLR Link Roundup – April 9, 2019

Proposed Amendment to the CCPA Would Create a Private Right of Action for All Violators After the enactment of the GDPR in May 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 was a “first-in-the-nation regulatory overhaul” for data protection. “The CCPA expanded consumer data protection laws by requiring large businesses operating in California to, among other things, notify their customers about the nature of their data collection (including what type of data is being collected Continue Reading →

STLR Link Roundup – April 6, 2019

Federal Circuit Agrees Purdue’s OxyContin Anti-Tampering Patent Is Obvious On April 4, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a November 2017 decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a Purdue Pharma LP patent covering a way to make its OxyContin painkiller resistant to abuse. According to Purdue, the patent covered the use of a hot-melt extrusion process which yielded a “core matrix” of magnesium stearate, oxycodone, and Continue Reading →

STLR Conversations – First Episode: Julio Sharp-Wasserman on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

This episode features Sam Matthews, STLR Executive Submissions Editor, talking with Julio Sharp-Wasserman, about his recently published note on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 prevents some online intermediaries, such as operators of websites, from being sued for the actions of third parties. For example, if someone uploads a defamatory video to YouTube, the person being defamed could sue the creator of the video, but couldn’t sue YouTube itself. Although many people Continue Reading →

IPRs and Sovereign Immunity

IPRs and Tribal Sovereign Immunity On July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit held in Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that Native American tribes cannot assert tribal immunity to avoid inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. IPR proceedings, enacted under the America Invents Act and conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), allow parties to challenge patent claims’ novelty or nonobviousness over certain forms of prior art. Pharmaceutical company Allergan sued competitor Mylan Continue Reading →

Return Mail v. USPS: Can the Government Petition for Post-Issuance Reviews?

A few weeks ago, on February 19th, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service. 868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. granted in part sub nom., 139 S. Ct. 397 (Oct. 26, 2018) (No. 17-1594). The question before the Court: whether the government qualifies as a “person” capable of petitioning for the institution of post-issuance patent reviews under the AIA. See 35 U.S.C.  §§ 311-19 (IPR); Continue Reading →

STLR Link Roundup – March 15, 2019

The Apple-Qualcomm Patent Battle On March 15, 2019, the jury of the federal District Court for the Southern District of California found that Apple infringed on three patents of Qualcomm and was required to compensate Qualcomm $1.41 per infringing iPhone sold. Specifically, the court found that Apple’s iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus and X have infringed Qualcomm’s two U.S. patents, 8,838,949 and 9,535,490. Also, Apple’s iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X have infringed Continue Reading →

USPTO Attorney Fees Go Up to The Supreme Court

On March 5th, 2019, the Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest Inc. The question for the Court is whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. §145 includes the salaries of personnel (e.g., attorneys and paralegals) employed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to defend against the suit. Options for Judicial Review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board There are two ways for patent Continue Reading →

STLR Link Roundup – March 5, 2019

High Court Limit On Costs In Copyright Cases Clarifies Stakes In a U.S. Supreme Court decision on March 4, 2019, the court ruled that “a federal district court’s discretion to award ‘full costs’ to a party in copyright litigation is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute.” In the case Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., the District Court awarded Oracle fees and costs, including $12.8 million for litigation expenses Continue Reading →