In the UCLA video streaming case, on February 6, 2012 Judge Consuelo Marshall held a second hearing in the case, this time on UCLA’s renewed motion to dismiss the case in response to Ambrose/AIME’s second amended complaint (SAC).  The SAC was filed in October 2011 following the judge’s dismissal of the case, largely on the basis of her opinion that sovereign immunity shields UCLA from suit and that AIME does not have standing to sue on behalf of its members, leaving open the fair use and other substantive copyright issues at the heart of the suit. The SAC contains expanded allegations as to the injury caused to AIME itself as an association by UCLA’s activities and the specific involvement of top UCLA officials in the decision to stream the Ambrose videos, as well as detailed allegations as to how the Video Furnace technology used by UCLA to stream the videos violated each of the exclusive rights of Ambrose as copyright owner.  The parties are awaiting a decision from the judge.  Regardless of the outcome, the case will likely head directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The lead article in the Winter 2012 edition of the AIME newsletter by Arnold Lutzker, “Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Lights A Fire,” discusses proposed legislation designed to enhance the legal tools available to law enforcement and IP owners to attack rogue sites selling billions of dollars of pirated movies, counterfeit/adulterated drugs and false national security materials.  The article sheds light on the contentious debate the proposed bill has engendered, with IP stakeholders pitted against SOPA opponents who argue that the legislation would stifle innovation and impose undue burdens on intermediaries such as online service providers, credit card companies and advertisers.

In the UCLA video streaming case, on October 5, 2011 Judge Consuelo Marshall granted UCLA’s motion to dismiss the case, in an opinion primarily grounded on her view that sovereign immunity shields UCLA from suit and that AIME does not have standing to sue on behalf of its members.  Thus the judge’s order did not definitively address the fair use and other substantive copyright issues at the heart of the suit.  The order also permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add additional factual support for certain of the allegations.  Accordingly on October 24, 2011 Lutzker & Lutzker filed a second amended complaint with expanded allegations as to the injury caused to AIME itself as an association by UCLA’s activities and the specific involvement of top UCLA officials in the decision to stream the Ambrose videos, as well as detailed allegations as to how the Video Furnace technology used by UCLA to stream the videos violated each of the exclusive rights of Ambrose as copyright owner.   UCLA will now have an opportunity to respond to the second amended complaint, following which the judge will issue a new decision.  See second amended complaint and exhibits Part 1, 2, and 3.

Arnie Lutzker is currently teaching a month-long distance learning course for the Center for Intellectual Property Management of University of Maryland’s University College entitled “Copyright, Photos, Video, Art & Multimedia.”  See the blog for more about the course.

The lead article in the Fall 2011 edition of the AIME newsletter by Arnold Lutzker and Susan Lutzker, “Patents:  A Brief Primer,” discusses the third prong of intellectual property protection (the other two being copyrights and trademarks) and their broad impact on the tools and processes of learning.  The article focuses both on legislative reform (the sweeping “America Invents Act” signed into law by President Obama on September 16); recent high-stakes lawsuits (such as the ongoing battle between Apple’s iPad and Samsung’s Galaxy to capture the tablet market); and big-dollar defensive patent strategies being adopted by major tech companies in the face of challenges that are certain to arise (for example, Google’s victory in a high-stakes bidding war to buy Motorola Mobility, a dedicated Android partner, for $12.5 billion).