6/22. The Supreme Court issued a one sentence per curiam opinion [PDF] in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Laboratories, a case regarding patentable subject matter. The Court wrote that "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."

Introduction. This lets stand the judgment of the Court of Appeals (FedCir). See, June 8, 2004 opinion [PDF]. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, which held Metabolite's patent to be valid and enforceable. The issue of patentable subject matter was not addressed below, but was the issue upon which certiorari was granted. The dismissal of the writ of certiorari leaves unchanged for now the law regarding patentable subject matter.

However, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a lengthy dissent, in which Justices Stevens and Souter joined. He argued that the Court should have considered the case on the merits. He wrote that "The question presented is not unusually difficult. We have the authority to decide it. We said that we would do so. The parties and amici have fully briefed the question."

The majority did not explain its disposition of the case. However, among the possible reasons for dismissing the writ is that the issue upon which the writ was granted was not litigated in the courts below. Hence, while the parties and amici briefed the legal issue before the Supreme Court, the District Court never developed a factual record. Moreover, the Supreme Court lacked the benefit of the lower courts' legal analysis.

There is also the matter that Chief Justice Roberts did not participate. His former law firm represents one of the parties. Affirmance in a 4-4 split could have turned out to be a short lived precedent, since Roberts would have participated in the next case involving patentable subject matter.

The Supreme Court has ducked, for now, the issue of patentable subject matter. Nevertheless, that it initially granted certiorari, and that three Justices opposed dismissal, suggest that the Supreme Court may soon revisit this issue in another case. The eventual opinion might impose limits upon patentable subject matter.

Until such time, the 1981 opinion of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, and its Federal Circuit progeny, remain good law. The Court held in Diamond that "a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter" under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which provides, in full, that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

Background. This is a patent case that does not involve information technology. Rather, the patent at issue discloses a process for helping to diagnose deficiencies of two vitamins, folate and cobalamin. However, the legal issues that the Court might have addressed are relevant to tech related patent practice.

Metabolite Laboratories is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 4,940,658, titled "Assay for sulfhydryl amino acids and methods for detecting and distinguishing cobalamin and folic acid deficency".

The abstract states: "Method for determining levels of sulfhydryl amino acids, particularly total homocysteine levels in samples of body tissue from warm-blooded animals, methods of detecting cobalamin and folic acid deficiency using an assay for total homocysteine levels, and methods for distinguishing cobalamin from folic acid deficiency using an assay for total homocysteine levels in conjunction with an assay for methylmalonic acid."

The Court of Appeals opinion involves Claim 13 of this patent, which states:

"13. A method for detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate in warm-blooded animals comprising the steps of:
  assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of total homocysteine; and
  correlating an elevated level of total homocysteine in said body fluid with a deficiency of cobalamin or folate."

Metabolite filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DColo) against Laboratory Corporation (LabCorp) alleging infringement of its patent. Metabolite prevailed in the District Court. The Court held that the patent is valid, and that LabCorp induced the infringement of the patent by encouraging doctors to perform certain tests. The Court awarded damages, and issued an injunction.

The District Court did not address patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It provides, in full, that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

LabCorp appealed. The Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [PDF] on June 8, 2004 affirming the District Court. Judge Rader wrote the opinion of the Court in which Judge Friedman joined. Judge Schall dissented in part.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 31, 2005. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in LabCorp v. Metabolite" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,244, November 1, 2004. The Supreme Court wrote in its Order List that "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 3 presented by the petition." This is "Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to ``correlat[e]´´ test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result."

Justice Breyer's Dissent. He wrote that it is a principle of patent law that "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable subject matter.

He then argued that "The justification for the principle does not lie in any claim that ``laws of nature´´ are obvious, or that their discovery is easy, or that they are not useful. To the contrary, research into such matters may be costly and time-consuming; monetary incentives may matter; and the fruits of those incentives and that research may prove of great benefit to the human race. Rather, the reason for the exclusion is that sometimes too much patent protection can impede rather than ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,´´ the constitutional objective of patent and copyright protection."

He continued that "The problem arises from the fact that patents do not only encourage research by providing monetary incentives for invention. Sometimes their presence can discourage research by impeding the free exchange of information, for example by forcing researchers to avoid the use of potentially patented ideas, by leading them to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing or pending patents, by requiring complex licensing arrangements, and by raising the costs of using the patented information, sometimes prohibitively so."

And, he argued, that "patent law seeks to sail between these opposing and risky shoals is through rules that bring certain types of invention and discovery within the scope of patentability while excluding others."

He then reviewed the facts of the case, the proceedings in the District Court and Court of Appeals, and suggested that he would have reversed.

Moreover, he criticized the State Street Bank case, which involves business method patents.

He wrote that State Street Bank "does say that a process is patentable if it produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." ... But this Court has never made such a statement and, if taken literally, the statement would cover instances where this Court has held the contrary. The Court, for example, has invalidated a claim to the use of electromagnetic current for transmitting messages over long distances even though it produces a result that seems "useful, concrete, and tangible." ... Similarly the Court has invalidated a patent setting forth a system for triggering alarm limits in connection with catalytic conversion despite a similar utility, concreteness, and tangibility. ... And the Court has invalidated a patent setting forth a process that transforms, for computer-programming purposes, decimal figures into binary figures -- even though the result would seem useful, concrete, and at least arguably (within the computer’s wiring system) tangible. ..." (Citations omitted. Parentheses in original.)

See, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signal Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case.

Amicus Briefs. Numerous amicus parties submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) wrote in its brief [28 pages in PDF] in support of Metabolite that the Supreme Court should "leave unchanged the current test described in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), for evaluating patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Diehr test properly reflects Congress’s intent that ``anything under the sun made by man´´ is patentable subject matter."

It also wrote that "Consistent with the broad language of section 101, this Court has recognized only a few exceptions to patentable subject matter. These exceptions have been narrowly construed to preclude only those patent claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas, in isolation.8 Although laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot be patented in isolation, the application of a law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea to a useful process or product may be patentable under section 101. It is irrelevant whether a portion of a patent claim, viewed in isolation, would or would not satisfy section 101. Rather, if the claim as a whole recites patentable subject matter, it satisfies the liberal standard of section 101." (Footnotes omitted.)

The AIPLA urged the Supreme Court "not to disturb the broad and accessible threshold of statutory subject matter that has fostered innovation and public disclosure over a wide variety of useful arts, and importantly, in new and emerging fields of technology ..."

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) wrote in its brief [19 pages in PDF] that "the bounds of patentable subject matter, as delineated by the Patent Act and by Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), are both correct and clear. Any narrowing of these bounds would likely disturb the existing property rights of patentees and disrupt incentives for current and future scientific and technological research."

In contrast, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) wrote in its brief [27 pages in PDF] that "This case squarely presents the central issue of patent policy in today's knowledge-driven economy: drawing the line between abstract idea and patentable process. With the explosive success of the Internet and the World Wide Web enabling a wealth of new business models, this question becomes as critical and challenging as delineating expression from idea in copyright. It is as important for software and services as it is for biotechnology and medical practice; this question must be answered for all innovation environments."

The CCIA argues that the Federal Circuit has gone too far in expanding the scope of patentable subject matter in the area of methods and processes since the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Diamond v. Diehr. However, the CCIA's concern is not with biological or medical related methods and processes. Rather, its concern is with business methods that involve information technology. And in particular, it is dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit's 1998 opinion in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signal Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368. (The Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case.)

The Court of Appeals number is 03-1120. The Supreme Court number is 04-607. See also, Supreme Court docket.

LabCorp is represented by Jonathan Franklin of the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, which is Chief Justice Roberts' former law firm. Roberts did not participate in the just released opinion.

Metabolite is represented by Miguel Estrada of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Estrada might have become a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) (President Bush nominated him), and might have then been nominated for one of the Supreme Court seats now held by Roberts or Alito, if not for opposition from Senate Democrats.

6/22. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) began its mark up the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, third discussion draft [159 pages in PDF] of the bill, which was introduced as S 2686, but is now numbered HR 5252.

The SCC will resume at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. The SCC has dealt with over twenty amendments. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Chairman of the SCC, told reporters after the meeting that there are over one hundred amendments, and that if the SCC does not finish on Tuesday, it will continue on Wednesday.

Members of the SCC made opening statements. These revealed that the one issue upon which there is substantial and intense division is network neutrality, which is addressed in Title IX of the bill. There is also considerable debate over video franchising, which is the subject of Title III.

The SCC substituted the third discussion draft for the bill as introduced, without objection. The SCC then approved without objection a package of eighteen amendments, eleven of which pertain to Title II, which addresses universal service and interconnection.

Sen. Stevens announced that the Committee would consider amendments to the bill, Title by Title, starting with Title I.

The SCC completed its consideration of amendments to Title I of the bill, which is titled "War on Terrorism". Title I includes provisions regarding interoperable emergency communications. The SCC considered several amendments to expand the types of entities eligible to receive interoperability grants. Sen. Stevens opposed such proposals, arguing that all of the funds should go to first responders. Although, the SCC approved one amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). Also, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who was absent, will be permitted to offer amendments when the mark up resumes on June 27.

The SCC began, but did not complete, its consideration of amendments to Title II, regarding universal service and interconnection.

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) also offered, but withdrew, an amendment that would cap universal service taxes and subsidies at $6,520,066,000 per year, with annual increases based on the rate of inflation.

Rights and Regulation of VOIP Providers. Sen. Sununu (at right) also offered a first decree amendment, and two second degree amendments to his first degree amendment, regarding interconnected VOIP service providers, including interconnection and compensation rights and obligations, and preemption of certain types of state laws. The three amendments were considered together, and approved by one roll call vote of 14-8.

In short, the third discussion draft includes, in Title II, a section 715 titled "Rights and Obligations of IP-Enabled Voice Service Providers". Sen. Sununu's amendments revise Section 715, and add a new Section 1007 to Title X of the bill, the miscellaneous provisions title.

Several members of the SCC debated at length, and sought guidance from counsel regarding, what types of state regulation of VOIP service would be preempted, and what types would not be preempted.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) argued against state preemption, and these amendments. He was joined in voting against the amendments by Senators Conrad Burns (R-MT), David Vitter (R-LA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), John Kerry (D-MA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Some votes were cast by proxy.

The SCC will continue its consideration of amendments on this subject, and other amendments to Title II, on Tuesday, June 27.

The entirety of the Sections 715 and 1007 are set out below. The language from the third discussion draft is shown in normal font and color. Sen. Sununu's additions are displayed in bold and red print. His deletions are shown in strikethrough. Readers whose e-mail system deletes HTML font codes from e-mail messages will not be able to see the which language is added and deleted by Sen. Sununu's amendments.

SEC. 715. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A facilities-based (as determined by the Commission) IP-enabled voice service provider shall have the same rights, duties, and obligations as a requesting telecommunications carrier under sections 251 and 252, if the provider elects to assert such rights. A telecommunications carrier may not refuse to transport or terminate IP-enabled voice traffic solely on the basis that it is IP-enabled. A provider originating, transmitting, or terminating IP-enabled voice traffic shall not be exempted from paying compensation for interstate traffic owed to another provider or carrier solely on the basis that such traffic is IP-enabled, and any obligations to pay compensation with respect to traffic that originates or terminates on the public switched telephone network shall be reciprocal, including any payment to an IP-enabled voice service provider that receives traffic from, or sends traffic to, the public switched telephone network.

(b) DISABLED ACCESS.---An IP-enabled voice service provider or a manufacturer of IP-enabled voice service equipment shall have the same rights, duties, and obligations as a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications equipment manufacturer, respectively, under sections 225, 255, and 710 of the Act. Within 1 year after the date of enactment of Internet and Universal Service Act of 2006, the Commission, in consultation with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to implement this section. In prescribing the regulations, the Commission shall take into account the differences between IP-enabled voice service and circuit-switched communications and the functionalities required by the disabled community.

(c) IP-ENABLED EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMS.---Prior to installation or activation of an IP-enabled voice service for a customer, an IP-enabled voice service provider shall provide clear and conspicuous notice to the customer that---

   (1) such customer should arrange with his or her emergency response system provider, if any, to test such system after installation;

   (2) such customer should notify his or her emergency response system provider as soon as the IP-enabled voice service is installed; and

   (3) a battery backup is required for customer premises equipment installed in connection with the IP-enabled voice service in order for the signaling of such system to function in the event of a power outage.

(d) STATUS.---Notwithstanding any other provision of law, IP-enabled voice service is an interstate service and is subject only to Federal regulations except as provided in section 254.

(e) (d) DEFINITIONS.---In this section:

   (1) EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM.---The term ‘emergency response system’ means an alarm or security system, or personal security or medical monitoring system, that is connected to an emergency response center by means of a telecommunications carrier or IP-enabled voice service provider.

   (2) EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTER.---The term ‘emergency response center’ means an entity that monitors transmissions from an emergency response system.

   (3) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE.---The term ‘IP-enabled voice service’ means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or offered separately) with interconnection capability such that the service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network.

SEC. 1007. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.

(a) IN GENERAL.---Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall have authority to issue, and shall not undermine, alter, or amend decisions made in Vonage Holdings Corp. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning an Order of the Minnesota  Public Utilities Commission, WC Docket 04-267 (November 9, 2004) or Petition for Declaratory Ruling that pulver.com's Free World Dialup is Neither Telecommunications Nor a Telecommunications Service, WC Docket No. 03045 (February, 19, 2004), except to apply such decisions to other similar services that share similar basic characteristics.

(b) PENDING CHALLENGES.---Any pending challenges to the decisions described in subsection (a) shall be dismissed.

(c) CLARIFICATION.---Nothing in this section shall be construed to supercede or preempt the consumer protection laws of any State, including any privacy or anti-child pornography law of a State, except to the extent that such laws regulate the rates for entry or exit by a provider of such services.

See, FCC's Pulver order [PDF], and stories titled "FCC Rules Pulver's FWD Is Not Telecommunications, Is Not Telecommunications Service, and Is Information Service" and "Reaction to the FCC's Pulver Ruling" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 836, February 13, 2004.

See, FCC's Vonage order [PDF], and stories titled "FCC Adopts Order on Vonage's VOIP Petition" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,015, November 10, 2004, and "FCC Releases Vonage VOIP Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,018, November 15, 2004.

The House will not meet.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM for morning business.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will hold a mostly closed meeting. The open portion will be from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 111, at Pages 33477-33478. Location: U.S. Secret Service HQ (closed portions), and St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th & K Streets, NW (open portion).

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will continue its mark up of the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Eric Solomon, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy. See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a panel discussion titled "Nuts and Bolts of Section 337 Practice Before the International Trade Commission". The speakers will include Maureen Browne (Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg) and Karin Norton (US International Trade Commission). The price to attend ranges from $15-$40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Taxation Section will host a panel discussion titled "Taxing the Digital World: How do States Tax Downloads and other Electronic Stuff?". The speakers will include Mark Nebergall (Software Finance and Tax Executives Council), Matthew Tomalis (Federation of Tax Administrators), and Stephen Kranz (Council On State Taxation). The price to attend ranges from $15-$27. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

CANCELLED. 6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Private Equity Fund and Lender Issues in FCC-Regulated Businesses". See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on June 23. Location: Akin Gump, 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a panel discussion titled "Policymakers' Guide to Radio Frequency Identification". The participants will include Robert Cresanti (Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology) and Dan Caprio (Progress & Freedom Foundation). See, notice. Location: Room B339, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological Innovation Coexist?". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

Day one of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). At 8:30 AM, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein will speak. At 8:50 AM, there will be a panel discussion titled "The Great Debate: BWA Spectrum For Consumer Broadband And/Or Public Safety?". At 4:45 PM there will be an panel discussion titled "Wireless Stakes In The 'Net Neutrality' Debate". See, conference web site. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington DC.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2006 on November 6-24, 2006, in Ankara, Turkey. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798. Location: __.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate. See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 12:00 NOON on June 23. Location: Capital Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the fecond of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Capital Markets will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Investors: A Review of the Milberg Weiss Indictment and Ways to Prevent Securities Litigation Abuse". See also, story titled "Milberg Weiss Indicted for Paying Illegal Kickbacks to Class Action Plaintiffs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers and Diversity Committees will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Jeff Tignor at jhtig at aol dot com or Natalie Roisman at natalie dot roisman at fcc dot gov. Location: Poste -- Modern Brasserie, 555 8th Street, NW.

Day two of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. At 10:45 AM there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Surveying Options For New North American Spectrum Acquisition & Valuation". At 1:30 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Looming Issues For U.S. BWA Carriers". At 2:45 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Meet The FCC Legal Advisors". Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

DELAYED TO AUGUST 9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will commence Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands.

Day three of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. At 9:45 AM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Is Your Spectrum At Risk? Preparing For The World Radio Conference 2007". At 1:30 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "U.S. Telecom Act Reform: Prospects & Wireless Implications?". At 2:45 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Small Carrier Tutorial On Meeting FCC 911 & CALEA Obligations". Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Day four of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) regarding criminal remedies. See, notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, May 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 104, at Pages 30863-30864.

EXTENDED TO JULY 31. Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register regarding revisions to guidelines used by USPTO personnel in their review of patent applications to determine whether the claims in a patent application are directed to patent eligible subject matter. The USPTO seeks comments on, among other topics, "claims that perform data transformation" and "claims directed to a signal per se". With respect to the later, the USPTO asks "If claims directed to a signal per se are determined to be statutory subject matter, what is the potential impact on internet service providers, satellites, wireless fidelity (WiFi [reg]), and other carriers of signals?" See, Federal Register, December 20, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 243, at Pages 75451 - 75452. See also, story titled "USPTO Seeks Comments on Subject Matter Eligible for Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,278, December 22, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register (June 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 114, at Pages 34307-34308) extending deadline, and story titled "USPTO Seeks Further Comments on Patentable Subject Matter" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,391, June 14, 2006.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding licensing and use of frequencies in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz portions of the 902-928 MHz band that are used for the provision of multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (M-LMS band). This NPRM is FCC 06-24 in WT Docket No. 06-49. See, text [24 pages in PDF] of NPRM; notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Pages 15658-15666; and story titled "FCC Releases NPRM on M-LMS Systems" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,325, March 8, 2006.

Effective data of the Library of Congress's Copyright Office's fee increases. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 59, at Pages 15368-15371.

The House will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. See, Majority Whip's calendar.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding telecommunications relay services (TRS) and speech to speech services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities, and misuse of internet protocol relay service and video relay service. This item is FCC 06-58 in CG Docket No. 03-123. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 105, at Pages 31131-31137.

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.