Author name: Gary

Copyright, District Courts

Nazemian v. NVIDIA — Court Allows AI Copyright Training Claims to Proceed, Applies Cox Framework to Dataset Scripts

A federal judge denied most of NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss a class action alleging the company trained AI models on pirated books, finding that dataset download scripts ‘have no other purpose than to speed up the process of infringement’ and that the Supreme Court’s Cox ruling does not shield NVIDIA from contributory liability.

EU Courts, Utility Patent

Gilead Sciences v. Academy of Military Medical Sciences — UPC Revokes Chinese Military Institute’s Remdesivir COVID-19 Patent for Lack of Inventive Step

The UPC Central Division in Milan revoked the Academy of Military Medical Sciences’ European patent on the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19, finding the claimed invention lacked inventive step because prior art published just ten days before the priority date already identified remdesivir as likely effective against the newly emerged Wuhan coronavirus.

District Courts, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Orion Labs Tech v. TalkDesk — Court Invalidates Six AI Bot Patents Under Alice but Spares Real-Time Translation Patent

A Northern District of California court dismissed six AI bot patents as ineligible under Alice but spared a seventh — a real-time translation patent — finding its claims specified how a remote server achieves multilingual group communication, rather than merely claiming the abstract idea of translation.

Ninth Circuit, Section 230

Doe v. Meta Platforms — Ninth Circuit Holds Section 230 Bars Claims Over Facebook’s Role in Myanmar Genocide

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims by Rohingya plaintiffs alleging Facebook’s algorithm amplified anti-Rohingya violence in Myanmar, holding that Section 230 immunizes Meta from liability for algorithmically recommending third-party content — though two concurring opinions urged the court to reconsider its broad reading of Section 230.

Federal Circuit, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics — Federal Circuit Vacates § 101 Eligibility for Functional “Optimization” Claims, Affirms Eligibility for Specific Non-Uniform Constellation Claims

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit drew a sharp § 101 line between functional ‘optimization’ claims that recite a result without specifying a concrete configuration and ‘constellation’ claims that recite specific non-uniform point arrangements. It vacated summary judgment of eligibility for the former and affirmed eligibility for the latter, while affirming the underlying jury verdict, willful-infringement finding, and damages award against LG.

Other International (Taiwan), Trade Secret, Federal

Taiwan v. Chen Li-ming (TSMC Trade Secret Case) — Taiwan Court Sentences Former Engineer to 10 Years for Leaking 2nm Chip Secrets to Tokyo Electron

Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court convicted four engineers and fined Tokyo Electron NT$150 million in the first-ever corporate conviction under Taiwan’s National Security Act, for theft of TSMC’s 2nm semiconductor process technology classified as a national core critical technology.

Section 230, State Courts

Meta Platforms v. Eighth Judicial District Court — Nevada Supreme Court Denies Meta’s Writ Petitions, Holding Section 230 and the First Amendment Do Not Bar State AG’s Addictive-Design Claims

In a consolidated order resolving three writ petitions, the Nevada Supreme Court applied its earlier TikTok and Snap decisions to reject Meta’s challenge to the State’s deceptive-trade-practices, products liability, negligence, and unjust enrichment claims over Messenger, Facebook, and Instagram — holding that personal jurisdiction was properly exercised and that neither Section 230 nor the First Amendment shields Meta from state-law claims aimed at platform design rather than third-party content.

District Courts, Section 230

Taddeo-Waite v. X Corp. — Section 230 Shields Platform from Subscriber’s Claims Over Algorithmic Amplification and Content Moderation

A federal magistrate judge held that Section 230 immunizes X (formerly Twitter) from a premium subscriber’s claims that the platform amplified harmful content via its recommendation algorithm and suppressed the subscriber’s own posts, rejecting the argument that algorithmic curation falls outside Section 230’s protections.

Scroll to Top