1/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) has issued several opinions that relate to various jurisdictional issues in patent litigation. In one case, Silicon Images v. Genesis Microchip, the Court addressed the subject of when, in a settled patent infringement case, there is an appealable final order. In CEA v. CMO and Trintec v. Pedre Promotional Products the Court addressed personal jurisdiction. In CEA the issue is when a company that makes parts that end up in computers can be sued for patent infringement in the jurisdictions where those computers are sold. In Trintec the issue is where can a manufacturer be sued for patent infringement when it sells its products on the web. However, in both of these cases the Court of Appeals sent the cases back to the District Court for further development of the facts relevant to jurisdiction.

Some of these cases may be back to the Court of Appeals after further proceedings in the District Court. Moreover, the jurisdictional issues involved in the CEA and Trintec cases are unsettled. With respect to personal jurisdiction based on e-commerce activities, there are conflicting interpretations. This issue may ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

On January 28, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Silicon Images v. Genesis Microchip, a patent case in which the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment from which to appeal.

Silicon Images is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 5,974,464 and U.S. Patent No. 5,905,769. As a member of the Digital Display Working Group (DDWG), which developed a Digital Visual Interface (DVI) specification, it agreed to grant a royalty free license limited to those claims of its patents that would necessarily be infringed by anyone practicing the standards set forth in the DVI Specification. The remaining claims of any patent that were not necessary claims remained outside the terms of the license.

Genesis Microchip signed a DVI Adopters Agreement and began developing DVI receiver technology. But, Silicon Images asserted that it infringed non necessary claims of its patents.

Silicon Images filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDVa) alleging patent infringement. Genesis filed various counterclaims.

The District Court held a Markman hearing, but before issuing an opinion on cross motions for summary judgment, the two parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to settle the case. However, while preparing a Definitive Agreement, they subsequently disputed the meaning of their MOU. Pursuant to a clause in the MOU, the MOU became a binding settlement agreement. And, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment regarding the construction of their MOU. The District Court issued an order, in which it incorporated the terms of the MOU.

However, this order, as described by the Court of Appeals, "requires Silicon to certify that it received the payment stipulated by the terms of the MOU as a precondition to the dismissal, with prejudice, of the underlying infringement cause of action. Thus, Genesis's payment and Silicon’s stipulation to the court that it had received such payment are conditions precedent to dismissal of the underlying infringement claims. The conditions precedent were never satisfied. As a result, the underlying claims were never dismissed."

Genesis appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the appeal. Rather, it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

The Court of Appeals reasoned that "The final judgment rule cannot be satisfied by stipulation of the parties. Regardless of whether a case is resolved by being fully adjudicated on its merits or by a settlement between the parties, the final judgment rule remains a precursor to an appeal as of right before this court. Thus, even in a settled case, a final judgment must obtain. In order to satisfy this requirement, the trial court must dismiss, with or without prejudice, all of the claims as a predicate to a final judgment before appellate jurisdiction may lie to challenge any matter relating to the settlement. Final dismissal of all claims with prejudice acts as a full adjudication on the merits ..."

The Court wrote that "the underlying claims were never dismissed. At the time the defendants appealed to this Court, the plaintiff’s claims regarding infringement remained pending in the district court, meaning that the district court’s order was not final." Hence, there is no appealable final judgment, and the appeal must be dismissed.

The Court of Appeals noted that "Genesis could have sought permission under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (c)(1) to immediately appeal the interlocutory judgment and order of the district court, or Genesis could have made the required payment pursuant to the MOU with the appropriate certification of receipt by Silicon." But, it did neither of these.

This case is Silicon Images, Inc. v. Genesis Microchip Incorporated and Genesis Microchip (Delaware) Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 04-1207, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [17 pages in PDF] in CEA v. CMO, a patent case in which the Appeals Court vacated the District Court's dismissal of a Taiwanese defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction. CMO is a company that makes LCDs that are incorporated in products that are sold in the forum jurisdiction, Delaware. CEA thus argues that the District Court has personal jurisdiction over CMO based on a stream of commerce theory. The Court of Appeals did little to clarify the law on this subject. It wrote that the law is unclear, declined to decide the legal issue, and sent the case back to the District Court for more factual discovery.

CEA is an acronym for Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, a French government research agency that develops technologies for sale and license to the private sector for commercial use. Despite its name, it also conducts research on information technologies. The CEA owns U.S. Patent No. 4,701,028, titled "Liquid crystal cell which can have a homeotropic structure with compensated birefringence of said structure", and U.S. Patent No. 4,889,412, titled "Liquid crystal cell using the electrically controlled birefringence effect and a uniaxial medium of negative optical anisotropy usable therein".

CMO is Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, based in the nation of Taiwan. It makes liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It sells these to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), such as Dell, which incorporate them in their computer products sold around the world, including in the state of Delaware.

CEA filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DDel) against CMO, Dell, Samsung, Sun Microsystems, and Viewsonic, alleging infringement of its two patents. The District Court has not yet disposed of the merits of the case. It has, however, granted CMO's motion to dismiss it for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals vacated this dismissal, and remanded to the District Court, with instructions to allows CEA discovery on the issue jurisdiction.

The Court began its analysis by stating that "In order to establish personal jurisdiction in a patent infringement case over a non-resident defendant whose products are sold in the forum state, a plaintiff must show both that the state long arm statute applies and that the requirements of due process are satisfied."

First, the Court of Appeals addressed the factual findings. "Contrary to the district court's holding, the evidence already presented by plaintiff is sufficient to demonstrate that CMO sells a very large volume of LCDs to companies which incorporate these displays into their final product and that these products are likely sold in Delaware in substantial quantities. The district court found that because CEA failed to present evidence of pre-filing sales of CMO products in Delaware (although evidence was presented on pre-filing orders and post-filing sales), and only submitted nationwide data on CMO sales, as opposed to CMO sales specifically in Delaware, that CEA failed to demonstrate that CMO products entered the state, or that the company derived substantial revenue from the sale of its products in Delaware."

The Appeals Court wrote that the District Court "imposed too high a burden of proof on CEA. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the evidence submitted by CEA, and CMO's failure to rebut the factual inference that devices incorporating its LCDs were sold in Delaware, the district court should have found CEA’s showing sufficient to establish that substantial revenues could be derived by CMO from the sales of products in Delaware incorporating CMO's LCDs."

Then, Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutional requirements under the due process clause that there be minimum contacts with the forum. It stated that the "scope of the stream of commerce theory under Delaware law is not clear". The Court wrote that this case "presents a factual scenario which would require us to determine whether or not additional conduct, beyond a showing of use of established distribution channels, is required to meet the demands of due process under the stream of commerce theory of personal jurisdiction." The Court of Appeals declined to answer this question.

Rather, the Court of Appeals concluded that "there is substantial uncertainty concerning both the scope of the Delaware law and that of the due process clause, and that these issues should not be resolved on the present record because the district court declined to order jurisdictional discovery." The Court reversed and remanded for failure to grant a discovery request.

This case is Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique v, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 04-1139, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Kent Jordan presiding. Judge Dyk wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Rader and Friedman joined.

On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Trintec v. Pedre Promotional Products, a patent case in which the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Tritec filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Pedre alleging patent infringement. Pedre, which makes watches in New York City and Rhode Island, wants the case to proceed in the Southern District of New York. It moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Pedre watches are sold in the District of Columbia by Pedre's sales representative. Moreover, Pedre sells its watches via an internet web site.

The District Court granted Pedre's motion to dismiss, and Trintec appealed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed at some length the body of case law on the question of when web based advertising and sales gives rise to personal jurisdiction over an online defendant. However, the Court of Appeals made no firm interpretation of the law. Rather, it found that the District Court had not sufficiently laid out the factual record, and hence, vacated and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, including, perhaps, discovery on the issue of jurisdiction.

This case is Trintec Industries, Inc. and Time to Invent, LLC v. Pedre Promotional Products, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 04-1293, an appeal from the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 1:03-CV-01267-RCL, Judge Royce Lamberth presiding. Judge Friedman wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Rader and Bryson joined.

1/26. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and sets comment deadlines for, a notice of inquiry (NOI) regarding orphan works. Orphan works are copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or impossible to locate.

The notice states that the CO seeks public comments on "whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders." See, Federal Register, January 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 16, at Pages 3739 - 3743.

Gigi Sohn, of Public Knowledge, stated in a release that "the evidence suggests that a large number of works may fall into the category of orphan works. We consider it extremely important, not only for the artists who are creating new work today, but also for the ideas created in years past, that orphan works be made as widely available as possible."

Initial comments are due by 5:00 PM on March 25, 2005. Reply comments are due by 5:00 PM on May 9, 2005.

On January 5, 2005, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote to the Register of Copyrights requesting that the CO study this issue and to report to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the end of the
year. Also, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), the Chairman and the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, wrote similar letters to the Register of Copyrights.

Also, during the 108th Congress, the Senate, but not the House, passed a large composite intellectual property bill, S 3021, that included as its Title IV the "Preservation of Orphan Works Act". The entire substance of this title was as follows: "Section 108(i) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking ``(b) and (c)´´ and inserting ``(b), (c), and (h)´´." See, 17 U.S.C. § 108.

Sen. Hatch explained last November that this "ensures the preservation of valuable historic records by correcting a technical error that unnecessarily narrows a limitation on the copyright law applicable to librarians and archivists. This will strengthen the ability of librarians and archivists to better meet the needs of both researchers and ordinary individuals and will result in greater accessibility of important works."

1/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion [19 pages in PDF] in BMI v. Roger Miller Music, a copyright royalties interpleader action in which the Appeals Court interpreted the copyright renewal language of 17 U.S.C. § 304. Interpleader is an action brought by a debtor, or one obligated to make a payment, who is uncertain as to which person or entity to make payment. Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) owes royalties as a result of the licensing of copyrighted music recordings of the late great Roger Miller (who wrote and recorded King of the Road, Dang Me and other songs). BMI does not know if the royalties are owed to Roger Miller Music, Inc. or Shannon Miller Turner, Roger's daughter. Hence, BMI filed an interpleader complaint in the U.S. District Court (MDTenn). The District Court granted summary judgment to the daughter. The Court of Appeals reversed. This case is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Roger Miller Music, Inc. and Shannon Miller Turner, App. Ct. No. 02-5766, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, at Nashville, Judge Todd Campbell presiding, D.C. No. 01-00453.

1/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [5 pages in PDF] in Woodhaven Homes & Realty v. Hotz, a copyright case involving the blueprints for a house in which the Court of Appeals applied the copyright attorneys fees language of 17 U.S.C. § 505. This case is Woodhaven Homes & Realty v. Hotz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 03-4158, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, D.C. No. 01-C-778, Judge Rudolph Randa presiding.

1/28. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced in a release that its Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) portal is now in operation. The TDR enables users to review documents in the official trademark application file.

1/27. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that describes, recites, and sets the effective date (December 8, 2004) for it final rule regarding revisions to patent fees as a result of passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. See, Federal Register, January 27, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 17, at Pages 3880 - 3892. President Bush signed HR 4818, the omnibus appropriations bill, on December 8, 2004. HR 4818 provides appropriations totaling $1,540,000,000 for the USPTO for FY 2005. The Congress did not approve HR 1561, the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003", which is also known as the USPTO fee bill. The House passed this bill on March 2, 2004. See, story titled "House Passes USPTO Fee Bill", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 849, March 4, 2004. The Senate did not pass it. HR 4818 contains the fee increases of HR 1561. However, the increases are only applicable for FY 2005 and 2006. See, story titled "Appropriations Bill Provides $1.54 Billion for USPTO, Temporary Fee Increases, But No End to Diversion" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,023, November 22, 2004.

1/26. The Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the question of whether the 2005 cable statutory license rate adjustment proceeding should take place under the auspices of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) system or the new Copyright Royalty Judge (CRJ) system. Comments are due by February 16, 2005. See, Federal Register, January 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 16, at Pages 3738 - 3739.

1/26. The Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register the announces, describes, and sets the comment deadline for, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding a proposed settlement of royalty rates for analog television broadcast stations retransmitted by satellite carriers under statutory license. Comments and Notices of Intent to Participate must be submitted are due by February 25, 2005. See, Federal Register, January 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 16, at Pages 3656 - 3658.

1/28. President Bush announced his intent to designate Peter Lichtenbaum to be acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. That is, he will head the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which was previously named the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). The BIS has regulatory authority over exports, for national security purposes, including exports of dual use items, such as computers, microprocessors, software and encryption products. Lichtenbaum (at left) is currently Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. He was previously an attorney in the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson. He will replace Kenneth Juster, who is leaving the Department of Commerce. See, White House release.

1/28. Erica McMahon was named acting Chief of Staff of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

1/13. Anne Chasser was named associate vice president for technology transfer and commercialization at the University of Cincinnati. She is a former Commissioner for Trademarks at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See also, story titled "Chasser to Leave USPTO" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 948, July 29, 2005.

The House will not meet. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM for morning business. It will then begin consideration of the nomination of Samuel Bodman to be Secretary of Energy.

The Supreme Court is in recess until February 22, 2005.

9:00 AM. Daniel Sutherland, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will speak at the National Association of Blind Lawyers Annual Conference. Open press. Location: Capitol Hill Holiday Inn, 550 C St. SW.

10:00 AM. House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will give speeches on the state of the union and the Democratic agenda. For more information, contact Brendan Daly (Pelosi) at 202 226-7616 and Jim Manley (Reid) at 202 224-2939. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

12:30 PM. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, will give a luncheon address. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

1:30 PM. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) will hold a news conference. For more information, contact Pam Ford at 202 775-1078. Location: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [38 pages in PDF] regarding use by unlicensed devices of broadcast television spectrum where the spectrum is not in use by broadcasters. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Use of Broadcast TV Spectrum" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 898, May 14, 2004, and story titled "FCC Releases NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Use of TV Spectrum" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 905, May 26, 2004. This NPRM is FCC 04-113 in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and No. 02-380. See, notice (setting original deadlines) in the Federal Register, June 18, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 117, at pages 34103-34112; first notice [PDF] of extended deadlines; erratum [PDF]; and December 22, 2004 Public Notice [PDF] (DA 04-4013) further extending the deadline for reply comments to January 31.

Deadline to submit comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding disseminate information to investors during the securities offering process. The NPRM states that "Significant technological advances over the last three decades have increased both the market's demand for more timely corporate disclosure and the ability of issuers to capture, process, and disseminate this information. Computers, sophisticated financial software, electronic mail, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, webcasting, and other technologies available today have replaced, to a large extent, paper, pencils, typewriters, adding machines, carbon paper, paper mail, travel, and face-to-face meetings relied on previously. Our evaluation of the securities offering process and procedural enhancements seeks to recognize the integral role that technology plays in timely informing the markets and investors about important corporate information and developments."

Deadline to submit applications and nominations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for membership on the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC). See, Public Notice [PDF] (DA 04-3892) and notice in the Federal Register, December 29, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 249, at Pages 78024 - 78025.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) regarding "general U.S. negotiating objectives as well as country-, product-, and service-specific priorities for the multilateral negotiations and work program in the Doha Development
Agenda (DDA) negotiations conducted under the auspices of the World Trade Organization". See, notice in the Federal Register, December 9, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 236, at Pages 71466 - 71468.

The House will meet at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget and the economic outlook. Location: Room 608, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will hold a news conference to announce its proposals for revisions to the Communications Act. The PFF proposal will address universal service, federal state relations, spectrum, institutional reform of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and other topics. For more information contact Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

10:15 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in USA v. Microsoft, No. 98-1232 (CKK). See, rescheduling order. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

11:00 AM. Attorney General John Ashcroft will give a speech. See, notice. Location: Allison Auditorium, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a brown bag lunch titled "Entertainment Law: The Year In Review". The speakers will be Maurita Coley and David Silverman (both of Cole Raywid & Braverman). See, notice. Prices vary from $20 to $30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit applications to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 232, at Pages 70217 - 70222; and notice in the Federal Register, January 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 11, at Pages 2844 - 2849.

8:45 PM. President Bush will deliver his State of the Union Address to a joint session of the House and Senate.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider several non-technology related items. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the International Telecommunications Union's ITU-T Study Group 2 (Service Definitions, Numbering, Routing, and Global Mobility) meeting. See, the ITU's calendar of meetings. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 250, at Pages 78515-78516. For more information, including the location, contact minardje@state.gov. Location: undisclosed.

10:00 AM. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs will hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security. See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

10:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet to adopt Committee rules, approve the Committee budget, approve the Committee oversight plan, and make subcommittee assignments. See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

10:45 AM. The House Education and Workforce Committee will meet to adopt the committee's rules and oversight plan. Location: Room 2175, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) meeting. See, the ITU's calendar of meetings. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 243, at Page 76027. For more information, including the location, contact Julian Minard at minardje@state.gov. Location: undisclosed.

2:30 PM. The House Financial Services Committee will hold its organizational meeting for the 109th Congress. See, notice. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to register for the Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) February 8 continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Communications Law 101". See, registration form [PDF].

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a business meeting. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a brown bag lunch titled "What's Hot and What's Not on Capitol Hill?". The topic is the prospects in the 109th Congress for intellectual property bills, such as the the Family Movie Act, Art Act, PIRATE Act, CREATE Act, Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act, Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, Piracy Deterrence & Education Act, and Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act. The scheduled speakers are Paul Martino (Majority Counsel for Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications), David Strickland (Senior Counsel for Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Competition & Consumer Affairs), Jonathan Meyer (Counsel to Sen. Joe Biden), Robert Brauneis (George Washington University Law School), and Barbara Berschler. See, notice. Prices vary from $10 to $30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

1:30 - 3:30 PM. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 2: Satellite Services and HAPS will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: Leventhal Senter & Lerman, 7th Floor Conference Room, 2000 K St. NW.

TIME? The Judicial Conference of the United States (JC) will hold a public hearing on its proposed amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 5005 regarding electronic filings. The JC has proposed amendments to Civil Rule 5, Appellate Rule 25, and Bankruptcy Rule 5005. Each of these proposed amendments would permit the applicable court, by local rules, to "permit or require papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means" (or similar language). Current rules provide that the applicable court may "permit" filing by electronic means. See, JC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, December 2, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 231, at Page 70156. Location: undisclosed.

9:30 AM - 1:30 PM. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 4: Broadcasting and Amateur Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: Shaw Pittman, 2300 N St., NW, Room 1B.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DC) will hear oral argument in National Science and Technology Network, Inc. v. FCC, No. 03-1376. Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Randolph will preside. This is an appeal of the FCC's cancellation of nine licenses to operate private land mobile radio stations in the Los Angeles, California area. See, FCC's brief [25 pages in PDF]. Oral argument is limited to 10 minutes per side. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute and the Discovery Institute will host a luncheon and panel discussion titled "The Telecom Act Nine Years Later: Why Reform Can't Wait". The speakers will be George Gilder (Discovery), Adam Thierer (Cato), John Wohlstetter (Discovery), and John Drescher (Discovery). Gilder is the author of Telecosm: The World After Bandwidth Abundance [Amazon]. Lunch will be served. The event is free. See, notice and registration page. Location: Room B-338, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Science Foundation (NSF) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending the NSF patents regulation to require grantees to use an electronic reporting and management system for inventions made with NSF assistance. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 9, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 236, at Pages 71395 - 71396.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its draft of SP 800-76. This is Special Publication 800-76, Biometric Data Specification for Personal Identity Verification [PDF]. Send comments and questions to DraftFIPS201@nist.gov.

1/27. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published in its web site a document [PDF] titled "SP 800-65: Integrating Security into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process".

1/26. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published in its web site its final public draft of SP 800-53. This is "Special Publication 800-53 (Final Public Draft), Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems". Comments are due by February 11, 2005. Send comments to sec-cert@nist.gov.

1/24. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published in its web site its draft [PDF] of SP 800-76. This is "Special Publication 800-76, Biometric Data Specification for Personal Identity Verification". Comments are due by February 7, 2005. Send comments and questions to DraftFIPS201@nist.gov.

1/28. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [40 pages in PDF] titled "Telemarketing: Implementation of the National Do-Not-Call Registry".

1/28. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a release regarding its enforcement the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and a list of its recent enforcement actions.

1/27. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General announced that it will not file a petition for writ of certiorari in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, a case regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) media ownership rules. The FCC announced its order on June 2, 2003. See, story titled "FCC Announces Revisions to Media Ownership Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 672, June 3, 2003. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its opinion [213 pages in PDF] on June 24, 2004, overturning some of the FCC's media ownership rules. FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who opposed the order, praised the decision not to seek certiorari. See, release [PDF].

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.