Advertisement
We Meant it the First Time!: Seventh Circuit Re-Affirms Gadelhak’s Narrow ATDS Reading Even as Facebook Ruling Lingers Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Well its March, 20201 which means only one thing time to start paying attention to the Supreme Court and its imminent ruling in the huge Facebook ATDS appeal.
The Grand Duchess and I have drawn straws to review opinions on decision days this month, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just sent a clear message regarding its view of the TCPA’s ATDS definition: it has told its story and its stickin to it.
In
Jackson v. Regions Bank, No. 20-2624 (7th Cir. February 26, 2021) the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just emphatically re-affirmed its
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Back in July and December 2020, we wrote about the seeming rise in allegations of infringement allegations under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) in life sciences cases. We noted that in those recent cases the Federal Circuit provided in-depth analyses of the application of DOE, prosecution history estoppel, and the various other limits on the DOE, and suggested that potential infringers needed to keep an eye on the substantive evolution of the doctrine.
But a recent decision in
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Civ. Action No. 1-12-cv-01601 (D. Del.) (docket entry 250), reminds practitioners that before addressing the substantive elements of DOE, they should make sure it’s properly in the case at all. In that case, Arendi’s original complaint accused Motorola of infringing “literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Its initial disclosures, filed under the Default Standard for Discovery, accused Motorola of “infringi
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Florida may soon join the growing number of states that have enacted comprehensive consumer privacy legislation. Backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, Florida
House Bill 969 (HB 969) would create new obligations for covered businesses and greatly expand consumers’ rights concerning their personal information, such as a right to notice about a business’s data collection and selling practices.
Significantly, and similar to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), HB 969 also would establish a private cause of action for consumers affected by a data breach involving certain personal information when reasonable safeguards were not in place to protect that information.
The bill also would amend Florida’s data breach notification law, the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014 (FIPA), to expand the definition of “personal information” to include biometric information.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.