Are Online Videos "Publicly Accessible"?
The decision in HVLP02 LLC v. Oxygen Frog turned on whether or not a YouTube video could qualify as a "printed publication," and therefore constitute prior art for patent purposes. As courts tend to assign the term "printed publication" a broad definition that usually includes videos, the YouTube video in question was considered prior art. Still, much of the analysis in these matters involves the "public accessibility" of a particular video.
This Jones Day White Paper reviews the law surrounding printed publications, explains practical ways to demonstrate that a YouTube video is or is not publicly accessible, and summarizes best practices.
Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.
