The right to sex education and contraceptives, particularly funding issues, continues to be a global issue. In October, France approved [JURIST report] a bill to pay for contraceptive and abortion coverage for minors. The day before that, a US federal appeals court declined to rehear [JURIST report] a Texas Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] funding case in which it ruled that the state could prohibit funding of facilities that perform abortions. In September an Illinois appeals court ruled [JURIST report] that pharmacists can refuse to dispense birth control drugs if they have religious objections to them. In May the Tennessee House of Representatives [official website] passed a bill [PDF, JURIST report] that augments the state's abstinence-only sex education curriculum to allow parents to sue school teachers or organizations who promote "gateway sexual activity". In 2009 a German court rejected a challenge [JURIST report] on religious grounds to mandatory sex education.

China has faced criticism for its policy of strict Internet regulation. In July the government suggested rules that would limit anonymous posting online [JURIST report]. In 2010, the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China [official website, in Chinese] released a position paper [JURIST report] on the country's human rights record, claiming that it has heightened Internet freedoms and improved civil and political rights. In July of that year, Chinese Internet regulators planned to drastically reduce Internet anonymity [JURIST report] by requiring people to use their real names when posting on certain Chinese websites, according to Human Rights in China (HRIC) [advocacy website]. HRIC's revelation came on the heels of a June announcement that Google would continue to operate its google.cn Internet search engine in mainland China, ending a four-month period during which the site simply redirected to the uncensored google.hk [search websites; JURIST report] after the company threatened in January to pull out of China entirely [JURIST report]. Earlier that month, the Chinese government defended [JURIST report] its Internet censorship laws in a report on Internet usage in the country.

Immigration laws [JURIST backgrounder] have become a hot button issue over the past few years, as many states, Arizona being the first, passed laws giving state and local officials more power to crack down on illegal immigration. In June, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in Arizona v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] to strike down sections of the Arizona law, but upheld the controversial portion allowing police officers to check immigration status of anyone arrested. In August, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Alabama's controversial law HB 56 [text, PDF], upheld a few sections of the law and rejected part of Georgia's law HB 87 [text, PDF]. That same month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] again heard arguments for the second time [JURIST report] on two immigration laws enacted in 2006 by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which deny permits to businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords who extend housing to them. In July a judge for the US District Court for the District of South Carolina [official website] declined to lift an injunction [JURIST report] against South Carolina's immigration law SB 20 [text], despite the Supreme Court's ruling. The lawsuit against the South Carolina immigration law had been put on hold [JURIST report] in January pending the outcome of Arizona v. United States.

Magnitsky, a lawyer for the Hermitage Capital Fund [official website], was arrested in 2008 by Russian Interior Ministry [official website, in English] officials on suspicion of tax evasion after he accused the ministry of embezzling $230 million from the state. The US Helsinki Commission [official website] has implicated 60 Russian government officials in the Magnitsky case, but only Kratov has been tried. Earlier this month, the US Congress passed the Magnitsky Act [text] in the lawyer's name, which will allow the US Secretary of the Treasury [official website] to freeze assets, prohibit all transactions and deny visas to Russians implicated in human rights abuses. In retaliation, Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website, in Russian; JURIST news archive] on Friday signed into law [JURIST report] a bill that prohibits US citizens from adopting Russian children.

Apple and Samsung have been embroiled in continuous patent litigation in courts around the world. In October, the Dutch Rechtbank's-Gravenhage [official website] court ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple software patent. That same month, a UK court also ruled that Samsung did not infringe [JURIST report] on an Apple design patent. In the same time frame Apple appealed a Tokyo District Court ruling [JURIST report] which dismissed the company's claim that Samsung had infringed on its patents. At the beginning of October, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] reversed an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung that prevented it from selling its Galaxy Nexus [product backgrounder]. Earlier in August, Apple won a $1.05 billion judgment [JURIST report] in the Northern District of California against Samsung involving other patent infringements.

Thursday's decision is the second in four months from the same court ordering Apple to pay damages for copyright infringement. Apple is currently appealing [Washington Post report] a September order by the court to pay $83,000 for alleged copyright infringement of a Chinese encyclopedia publisher. Apple has also been on both ends of multiple patent challenges with Samsung recently. In October, the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] lifted a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 [product backgrounder], which was granted during a patent infringement suit brought by Apple against Samsung [corporate website]. In September, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) [official website] ruled against Samsung [JURIST report] in a suit brought against Apple claiming that Apple infringed on four of its patents.