Record label

Legal Update: Jay-Z’s Former Label Settles NFT Lawsuit, L’Oréal Patent Infringement Is Back in Court, and More: Risks and Insurance

Roc-A-Fella Records and co-founder Damon Dash reach legal settlement over attempted NFT auction of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ album copyright.

Jay-Z’s former label settles NFT lawsuit

The case: In one of the first lawsuits regarding non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, Roc-A-Fella Records for follow-up co-founder Damon Dash in 2021 after planning an NFT auction of his copyright to “Reasonable Doubt,” Jay-Z’s debut album.

Roc-A-Fella was founded in 1995 by Jay-Z, Dash and Kareem Burke. The suit alleged that “Dash does not even own ‘Reasonable Doubt’ or its copyright and, therefore, has no right to sell the album or any rights in it,” according to the complaint.

At the time, Roc-A-Fella obtained a restraining order blocking the sale of the NFT, but the issue was the ownership of the album, which Roc-A-Fella claimed belonged to the label, not the co-founders. individual, according to Reuters.

Scorecard: Roc-A-Fella arranges with Dash, who accepts that only the label, and not the individuals, can sell the copyrights of the album.

Carry: While Dash’s first effort to sell “Reasonable Doubt” stalled, Roc-A-Fella felt it was only a matter of time before he tried again. “The agreement dismisses the case without prejudice, meaning claims could be re-filed in the future,” according to Reuters.

“Reasonable Doubt”, released in 1996, is considered a hip-hop classic.

L’Oréal’s patent infringement back in court

The case: In 2017, the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Carmel Laboratories for follow-up L’Oréal for patent infringement in the Delaware District Court relating to skin cream formulas.

“L’Oreal’s RevitaLift moisturizer and no-name products for Maybelline, Lancôme and other L’Oreal brands use UMass technology for skin creams with the chemical adenosine”, Reuters reported.

The court found that UMass’ patent interpretations were too vague because they covered “a specific concentration of adenosine that reaches dermal cells below the outer layer of the skin,” according to Reuters. The plaintiffs appealed the case.

Scorecard: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that L’Oréal must face UMass and Carmel in court.

Carry“The Federal Circuit revived the patents on Monday after finding that they instead covered a specific amount of adenosine applied to the surface of the skin,” according to Reuters.

“The appeals court said its decision ‘removes an important premise’ from the invalidity decision and remanded the case for further proceedings,” according to Reuters, which noted that Carmel is “an affiliate of the Teresian Carmelites , a Massachusetts-based religious group that licenses UMass patents to make Easeamine anti-aging face cream.

Google’s $118 million settlement in gender discrimination case

The case: In 2017, three women who had previously worked for Google filed a discrimination class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court “alleging that it constituted discrimination against women in compensation and promotions”, according to the the wall street journal.

This lawsuit followed allegations made by the Department of Labor earlier in 2017 regarding a gender pay gap at the tech giant.

Scorecard: Google has agreed to settle the class action lawsuit for $118 million.

Carry: While Google is not admitting wrongdoing in settling the case, as part of the settlement, “independent experts will review Google’s hiring practices and pay equity studies,” according to the WSJ.

About 15,500 women who worked for Google are affected by the settlement, which will require a judge’s approval before funds are disbursed.

Qualcomm faces antitrust class action lawsuit

The case: A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is a repeated effort to hold Qualcomm liable for forcing tens of millions of California consumers ‘to pay artificially inflated prices for mobile phones , tablets and other cellular devices,” according to Reuters.

Last September, a U.S. appeals court “barred plaintiffs from pursuing federal antitrust suits and wiped out a national class that was estimated at 250 million members,” Reuters reported.

Scorecard: The case was recently filed and did not result in a resolution.

Carry: The new complaint concerns the use of California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws. Class attorneys said “both state statutes ‘provide more liberal liability standards’ than are available under the federal Sherman Act antitrust law,” according to Reuters.

Qualcomm should ask the court to dismiss the complaint. &

Jared Shelly is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]