Summaries of Judgments

United States v. Carter (532 F. Supp. 3d 884 (N.D. Cal. 2021)) addressed the definition of cybercrimes. The court held that cybercrimes encompass offenses in which computers serve either as the direct object of criminal conduct or as the instrumental tool facilitating wrongdoing. By clarifying this scope, the judgment provided guidance on the reach of federal statutes in prosecuting computer-based offenses. It applied an interpretive approach to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and related federal criminal laws to ensure broad coverage of digital misconduct.

Donaldson v. State (262 So. 3d 1135 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)) examined the admissibility of digital evidence in a child-pornography prosecution. When defense counsel failed to disclose laptop evidence and related expert testimony during discovery, the court excluded both as a sanction for the discovery violation. The judgment underscored the importance of strict compliance with discovery obligations in digital-evidence cases. It applied the commercial practices rule sanction under 16 CFR § 1025.37.

United States v. Nistor (No. 5:18-CR-81-JMH-MAS-14) addressed law enforcement’s search of social-media accounts. The district court treated digital profiles as private property, holding that a warrant based on probable cause was necessary before accessing personal messages. The decision emphasized the extension of Fourth Amendment protections to online contexts. It applied the Amendment’s warrant requirement to searches of electronic communications.

State v. Hunt (CR-18-0886 (Ala. Crim. App. Mar. 13, 2020)) considered the scope of digital-device search warrants. The appellate court upheld evidence despite a typographical error in the warrant’s description, citing the gravity of the child-pornography offense involved. The judgment illustrated a flexible approach to warrant interpretation when public safety concerns are compelling. It applied established case law on the interpretation of search warrants to prevent minor drafting errors from invalidating lawful searches.

Pacyno v. R. ([2024] NICA 3) examined sentencing for online child-pornography possession. The court imposed an aggravated sentence even though the victims remained anonymous, affirming that mere possession of illicit images warranted severe punishment. The ruling reinforced a zero-tolerance stance against digital sexual exploitation. It applied UK child-pornography legislation that criminalizes mere possession, regardless of the victim’s identity.

United States v. Reddick (900 F. 3d 636 (5th Cir. 2018)) addressed the admissibility of hash-value evidence in digital forensic investigations. The Fifth Circuit permitted matching hash values to serve as conclusive proof of file possession, streamlining the presentation of digital evidence. This judgment endorsed technological precision in criminal prosecutions. It applied the Federal Rules of Evidence governing the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence.

Van Buren v. United States (141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021)) clarified unauthorized access as theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Supreme Court ruled that accessing private databases without permission constitutes statutory theft. This interpretation broadened the Act’s scope to protect digital assets. It applied 18 U.S.C. § 1030, emphasizing that conduct exceeding authorized access carries criminal liability.

Economic Misdemeanor No. 887/2020 (RP/ECON 00002/2020/TGI/GSBO) (Cairo, Jun. 30, 2021) applied traditional harassment offenses to digital conduct. The Egyptian court held that cyberharassment falls under Article 306 bis of the Penal Code. This ruling extended established harassment statutes to online platforms. It applied national penal provisions to regulate electronic communications.

Hartley v. State (2022 Ark. 197 (Ark. 2022)) invalidated a conviction fee imposed for digital sexual-offense investigations when no designated digital forensic personnel were assigned. The Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the fee for failing to meet statutory requirements. This judgment emphasized procedural compliance in cybercrime prosecutions. It applied Ark. Code § 5-4-706(b)(2) governing court costs for digital investigations.

United States v. O’Connor (No. 1:21-cr-00536-JSR (S.D.N.Y. 2023)) involved sentencing for cryptocurrency theft via social-media phishing. The Southern District of New York imposed a five-year term following extradition for defrauding investors. This decision underscored federal priorities in prosecuting emerging digital-asset crimes. It applied federal computer-intrusion and financial-fraud statutes to cryptocurrency offenses.

Prosecution v. Muriuki et al. (RP/ECON 00002/2020/TGI/GSBO (Rwanda 2021)) addressed employee-facilitated bank fraud through unauthorized system access. The Rwandan High Court convicted an accountant as a co-offender for abusing internal controls. This ruling highlighted individual criminal accountability for insider cyber fraud. It applied Rwandan criminal statutes on unauthorized access and financial misconduct.

Hewson v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ([2018] EWHC 471 (Admin)) considered cyber harassment and the lawfulness of Pre-Trial Harassment Letters. The High Court upheld the issuance of a Prevention of Harassment Letter as a proportionate policing measure. This judgment confirmed the adequacy of legal safeguards in online harassment cases. It applied the Protection from Harassment guidance governing civil preventive measures.

United States v. Klyushin (No. CR 21-10104-PBS (D. Mass. 2023)) addressed venue in computer-crime prosecutions. The court confirmed that venue is proper in any district where an essential element of the offense occurred, even if actions were conducted remotely. This ruling broadened the interpretation of federal venue statutes for cyber offenses. It applied the federal venue statute to digital-evidence cases.

Community Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc. (887 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 2018)) considered data-breach damages under tort law. The Seventh Circuit applied the economic-loss rule to bar recovery of purely economic harm without property damage or personal injury. The judgment limited financial restitution claims following cybersecurity incidents. It applied the economic-loss principle to delineate tort liability in data-breach litigation.

Hartigan v. Macy’s, Inc. (No. 20-10551-PBS (D. Mass. 2020)) addressed standing in privacy claims arising from data breaches. The district court found that a credible threat of identity theft constitutes an injury-in-fact under the Privacy Act. This judgment expanded the threshold for pleading standing in unauthorized-access cases. It applied statutory standing requirements of the Privacy Act to alleged data compromises.

I Tan Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC (No. 18-14959 (11th Cir. 2021)) similarly examined standing based on identity-theft risk. The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that an increased identity theft risk constitutes cognizable injury under the Privacy Act. The ruling aligned with decisions broadening constitutional and statutory standing doctrines in privacy contexts. It applied the Privacy Act’s injury-in-fact requirement to digital-breach claims.

McNeil v. Duncan (No. 19-694 (RDM) (D.D.C. 2022)) addressed corporate website security and tort liability. The District of Columbia held that a negligent-interference claim survives a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to implement reasonable digital-security measures. The judgment clarified pleading standards for cybersecurity-related torts. It applied general business-tort pleading requirements to the digital-security context.

Lanahan v. Regions Bank (No. 3:23-cv-00510 (M.D. Tenn. 2024)) considered a bank’s duty of care in fraud-alert warnings. The Middle District of Tennessee found that generic fraud alerts were insufficient to satisfy the bank’s obligations when customers face identity-theft risks. The ruling strengthened banks’ responsibilities to provide timely, informative fraud warnings. It applied Tennessee negligence and duty-of-care principles in financial-services contexts.

Wallace v. Commonwealth (76 Va. App. 696, 883 S.E.2d 664 (Va. Ct. App. 2023)) examined liability for ATM-security breaches. The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed that banks owe a duty to secure ATM systems and may be held liable for vulnerabilities that enable unauthorized access. The decision reinforced financial institutions’ duty to protect electronic banking infrastructure. It applied general duty-of-care principles in electronic-banking contexts.

Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (53 Cal.App. 5th 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)) considered e-commerce product liability under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. The California Court of Appeal held that online retailers can be liable for defective products in the same manner as brick-and-mortar sellers. This judgment expanded consumer protections in digital marketplaces. It applied ROSCA’s provisions to establish retailer liability for third-party goods.

Rahman v. Hassan & Ors ([2024] EWHC 1290 (Ch)) addressed death-bed gifts of online-account credentials. The Chancery Division recognized login details as valid donatio mortis causa, enabling the posthumous transfer of digital-asset access rights. This ruling clarified property-law principles for intangible assets. It applied traditional donatio mortis causa doctrines to modern credential transfers.

Rytikov v. Ukraine ([2024] ECHR 460) involved detention without prompt judicial authorization. The European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant’s detention violated the Convention’s requirement for judicial review of deprivation of liberty. This ruling reinforced the safeguard against arbitrary state interference in individual freedom. The court grounded its decision in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, mandating timely judicial oversight of any detention.

Sanchez v. France ([2023] ECHR 418) involved hate speech directed at protected groups. The European Court determined that implicit references to ethnicity or religion in abusive statements meet the threshold for hate speech. This ruling tightened the Convention’s hate-speech jurisprudence. It applied Article 10 to balance free expression against the need to shield vulnerable communities from targeted hostility.

Tugushev v. Orlov ([2021] EWHC 1514 (Comm)) dealt with cross-border disclosure of confidential bank documents. The Commercial Court refused an order that would contravene foreign investigatory laws. This decision underscored the doctrine of international comity in transnational litigation. It applied comity principles to protect confidential information from conflicting legal regimes.

London Borough of Hackney v. Information Commissioner ([2024] UKFTT 373 (GRC)) evaluated Freedom of Information Act exemptions for national security. The tribunal upheld section 58, affirming public authorities’ power to classify sensitive information. The judgment balanced transparency against security imperatives. It applied FOIA 2000 s. 58 to delineate grounds for withholding data.

• Capitol Records v. British Telecommunications Plc ([2021] EWHC 409 (Ch)) concerned ISP injunctions blocking copyright-infringing file-hosting websites. The High Court granted an order requiring the ISP to block access to unlicensed file‐sharing platforms. This decision reinforced rights holders’ ability to curb digital piracy at the network level. It applied CDPA 1988 provisions authorizing injunctions against intermediaries.

• Matchroom Boxing Ltd v. BT Plc ([2020] EWHC 2868 (Ch)) similarly involved blocking orders against ISPs facilitating copyright infringement. The court granted an injunction compelling BT to block unauthorized sports-streaming sites. The judgment underscored consistent enforcement of intellectual property rights in digital distribution. It applied the CDPA 1988 injunction provisions for intermediaries enabling infringement.

• Lifestyle Equities CV v. Amazon UK Services Ltd. ([2021] EWHC 118 (Ch)) dealt with trademark liability for online listings. The High Court held that Amazon’s passive role in listing branded goods by third-party sellers does not amount to trademark infringement absent evidence of endorsement. This ruling protected e-commerce platforms from strict liability for user-generated content. It applied the UK Trade Marks Act to clarify intermediaries’ safe harbor.

• InterDigital Technology Corp. v. Lenovo Group Ltd ([2023] EWHC 1583 (Pat)) addressed patent jurisdiction over global sales. The Patents Court extended UK jurisdiction to acts inducing infringement within its territory, even where initial sales occurred abroad. This decision broadened enforcement options for cross-border patent holders. It applied the UK Patents Act’s jurisdictional rules and infringement definitions.

• Kove IO, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. (1:18-cv-08175) saw a jury award of $525 million for infringement of three cloud-storage patents, with AWS subsequently filing motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, challenging the apportionment of damages. It arose from Kove’s December 2018 suit accusing AWS’s S3 and DynamoDB services of infringing three distributed-data-storage patents. On March 8, 2022, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer granted AWS’s motion to stay the litigation pending ex parte reexamination of all three patents at the USPTO, finding that any prejudice to Kove was not undue and that a stay would simplify the issues and conserve judicial resources.

• Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (2:25-cv-00552) resulted in a $445 million damages award after the jury found willful infringement of two memory-module patents; Micron’s post-verdict motions remain pending. The dispute arose when Netlist filed suit alleging that Micron Semiconductor Products Inc., Micron Technology Texas LLC, and Micron Technology, Inc. infringed four patents covering high-bandwidth and AI-optimized memory modules. Summons were executed on May 27, and on June 11, Netlist filed its Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) and its corporate disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. Between June 17 and June 24, attorneys for both sides entered appearances, and Micron filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice with supporting exhibits. On June 26, Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered this case consolidated for all pretrial proceedings with lead docket No. 2:25-cv-00557, directing all future filings to the lead case.

• IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (1:18-cv-00001) involved a single patent covering AI assistant voice-command processing, leading to a $242 million jury verdict in favor of IPA Technologies. It arose from IPA’s suit accusing Microsoft of infringing three distributed-agent coordination patents. After extensive briefing and appearance motions, Judge Richard G. Andrews issued a Markman order on April 27, 2023, construing key “interagent communication language” terms in U.S. Patents 6,851,115; 7,069,560; and 7,036,128. Following post-construction proceedings, the parties stipulated to terminate the case on June 20, 2024.