1/25. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its divided opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Hydril Company LP v. Grant Prideco LP, a patent and antitrust case involving oil field technology.

Grant Prideco owns U.S. Patent No. 6,244,631, titled "High efficiency drill pipe". Hydril Company asserts that it acquired this patent by fraud upon the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by failing to disclose to the USPTO material prior art of which Grant Prideco was aware.

Hydril Company filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDTex) against Grant Prideco alleging that it violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by  monopolizing two product markets by enforcing a patent (No. 6,244,631) that had been obtained by fraud on the USPTO. Hydril also alleged that Grant Prideco infringed another patent that the Hydril owns, and breach of contract (a technology licensing agreement).

Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2, provides in part that "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished ..."

The District Court dismissed the antitrust and patent claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), FRCP. It wrote that Hydril "failed to allege enforcement activity by Grant Prideco which would create an objectively reasonable apprehension that Grant Prideco intended to enforce the ’631 Patent against Hydril". It dismissed the patent claim because the parties waived the right to sue for patent infringement in a prior agreement. The District Court dismissed the contract claim (a state law claim), without prejudice to refiling in state court. This appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals reversed. It cited the 1965 opinion of the Supreme Court in Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., which is reported at 382 U.S. 172. The Supreme Court held then that "the enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the Patent Office may be violative of § 2 of the Sherman Act provided the other elements necessary to a § 2 case are present."

The Court of Appeals added that Walker Process fraud is a variant of common law fraud, and that the elements of common law fraud include a representation of a material fact, the falsity of that representation, and the intent to deceive or, at least, a state of mind so reckless as to the consequences that it is held to be the equivalent of intent.

It reviewed the factual allegations in the complaint and concluded that the conduct alleged in Hydril’s complaint would constitute Walker Process fraud.

The Court of Appeals then held that the District Court erred in dismissing the antitrust claim for failure to allege sufficient enforcement activity by Grant Prideco.

It wrote that "To the extent the district court's ruling may have been based on Hydril's failure to allege threatened enforcement action against Hydril rather than against its customers, a valid Walker Process claim may be based upon enforcement activity directed against the plaintiff’s customers. Threats of patent litigation against customers, based on a fraudulently-procured patent, with a reasonable likelihood that such threats will cause the customers to cease dealing with their supplier, is the kind of economic coercion that the antitrust laws are intended to prevent. A supplier may be equally injured if it loses its share of the market because its customers stop dealing with it than if its competitor directs its monopolistic endeavors against the supplier itself. Without customers, a supplier has no business."

Grant Prideco also argued that the District Court dismissal can be upheld on grounds not stated by the District Court. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of these arguments. Rather, it left them for consideration by the District Court on remand.

Grant Prideco argued that Hydril has not shown injury in fact because it alleged only exclusion from the international market rather than the domestic market, that Hydril is a remote party that cannot maintain Walker Process claim, and that Hydril has not alleged that the patent gave Grant Prideco any market power in the relevant market.

The Court of Appeals also reversed the dismissal of the patent claim, as a matter of interpretation of the waiver agreement. And, since it reinstated the two federal claims, it also reinstated the state law claim of breach of contract.

Judge Mayer dissented. He wrote that Hydril lacked standing to bring an antitrust claim. He elaborated that the exclusionary power of a U.S. Patent only extends to U.S. territory. And, Hydril did not allege in its complaint that either it, or its customers, participated in the U.S. market. He continued that this is a question of law, not fact, so the Court of Appeals should not punt this issue back to the District Court. He argued that the dismissal of the antitrust claim should have been affirmed.

Judge Mayer also differed on the matter of waiver of infringement claims.

This case is Hydril Company LP and Hydril Company U.K. v. Grant Prideco LP, and Grant Prideco, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2006-1188, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Nancy Atlas presiding. Judge Friedman wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Bryson joined. Judge Mayer wrote a dissenting opinion.

1/23. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [16 pages in PDF] in Vas-Cath, Inc. v. University of Missouri, a patent case involving 11th Amendment immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court, which had dismissed an appeal from a USPTO interference determination on 11th Amendment grounds. The Court of Appeals held that after initiating and participating in a patent interference proceeding, a state cannot subsequently assert 11th Amendment immunity to preclude a statutory appeal from the determination of the USPTO.

Both Vas-Cath, Incorporated and the University of Missouri, which is a state entity, applied for patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO conducted an interference proceeding pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 135 to determine priority.

The Court of Appeals wrote that the University of Missouri "invoked the procedures to institute an interference between the University's pending application and Vas-Cath's issued patent; the University amended its application by copying into the application all nineteen claims from the Vas-Cath patent, as the practice permits. During the ensuing six-year interference proceeding both sides vigorously contested the issues, producing records, examining and cross-examining witnesses, filing motions and briefs, and arguing their positions."

The USPTO awarded priority to Missouri and granted Vas-Cath's nineteen claims to Missouri.

Vas-Cath appealed the determination of the USPTO to the U.S. District Court (DC) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court (WDMo). The District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that Missouri has 11th Amendment immunity.

This appeal followed.

The 11th Amendment provides that "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

The Supreme Court held in its 1996 opinion of the Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, which is reported at 517 U.S. 44, that the Congress lacks authority under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate the States' 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. The Supreme Court extended this to the context of intellectual property in its 1999 opinion in Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank, which is reported at 527 U.S. 627. That case invalidated the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act. It further extended this to trademark in its 1999 opinion in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid, which is reported at 527 U.S. 666. That case invalidated the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act.

Under current Supreme Court interpretation of the 11th Amendment, states can hold intellectual property, and enforce their intellectual property rights in federal court. At the same same, states can infringe the intellectual property of others, without fear of money judgments against them. Some states infringe intellectual property rights, hide behind 11th Amendment immunity, and then lobby their Senators to block legislation that would remedy this situation.

The Court of Appeals is bound by, and cited, these opinions in the present case. It nevertheless reversed.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that "The civil action authorized by §146 is not a new claim, but an authorized phase of the interference proceeding that is conducted by the PTO and is subject to judicial review."

The Court of Appeals concluded that "The University initiated and participated in the contested PTO interference against Vas-Cath; we conclude that the University cannot both retain the fruits of that action and bar the losing party from its statutory right of review, even if that review is conducted in federal court. In the circumstances that here exist, the state's actions with respect to the interference include waiver with respect to the ensuing civil action. Having waived any potential immunity as to the interference contest in the PTO, we conclude that the University waived any Constitution-based objection to Vas-Cath's statutory right of judicial review. The dismissal of the §146 action is reversed; we remand to the district court for further proceedings."

This case is Vas-Cath, Incorporated v. Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-1100, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, D.C. No. 05-0400-CV-W-GAF, Judge Gary Fenner presiding. Judge Pauline Newman wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Lourie and Rader joined.

Vas-Cath was represented by Vincent Belusko of the Los Angeles office of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster. The University of Missouri was represented by Barbara McCurdy of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Finnegan Henderson.

TLJ Commentary. Perhaps it should be noted that the Supreme Court only thinly decided the above cited cases regarding 11th Amendment immunity and intellectual property. Each was a 5-4 opinion. Two members of the majority have since died or retired (Rehnquist and O'Connor).

Both Seminole Tribe and Florida Prepaid were 5-4 opinions written by the late William Rehnquist. In both cases, he was joined by O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy. In both cases, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented. College Savings Bank was a 5-4 opinion written by Scalia.

Moreover, these majority opinions lack a sound constitutional basis. They are mechanical extensions of a conservative state rights judicial philosophy to an area of law that the philosophers of states rights never contemplated.

In addition, these majority opinions lack a policy justification. Although, some states that free ride on the intellectual property of others vigorously defend the opinions.

Also, on January 23, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 opinion [41 pages in PDF] in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, a bankruptcy case regarding state sovereign immunity in which the Supreme Court upheld a Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity.

That is, while the Supreme Court previously overturned Congressional attempts to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the context of intellectual property law, it allowed the Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the context of bankruptcy law. But, Congressional powers to write intellectual property and bankruptcy statutes are on equal Constitutional footing.

Given these circumstances, and the recent turnover on the Supreme Court, it is possible that Supreme Court interpretation in this area could evolve.

Central Virginia Community College was also a 5-4 opinion. Justice O'Connor, who has since retired, switched from the states rights side to the Congressional side. Chief Justice Roberts joined the states rights camp. Justice Sam Alito has since joined the Supreme Court.

There is also the possibility of legislative action. There was no successful or concerted effort to address this issue in the 109th Congress. However, there were efforts prior to that. See, stories titled "Legislators Introduce Bills to Address Infringement by States" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 302, November 6, 2001; "Sen. Leahy Reintroduces Bill to Close 11th Amendment Loophole to IPR" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 394, March 22, 2002; "Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Federalism and Intellectual Property" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 522, October 3, 2002; and "Legislators Re-Introduce Bills to Address State IPR Sovereign Immunity" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 680, June 13, 2003.

1/4. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced HR 34, an untitled bill to create a pilot program in some U.S. District Courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among judges and clerks.

The bill has no other original cosponsors. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Both Rep. Issa and Rep. Schiff are members.

Rep. Issa and Rep. Schiff introduced a very similar bill, HR 5418, in the 109th Congress. They introduced it on May 18, 2006. See, story titled "Reps. Issa and Schiff Introduce Bill to Create Pilot Program of Specialized Patent Judges" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,376, May 23, 2006.

The HJC's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property approved HR 5418 on July 27, 2006. The HJC approved it on September 21, 2006. See, stories titled "HJC Approves Bill Regarding Specialized Patent Judges" and "HR 5418 As Approved by House Judiciary Committee" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,449, September 14, 2006. See also, House Report No. 109-673. The House approved it by voice vote on September 28, 2006. HR 34 (110th) is substantially identical to the version of HR 5418 (109th) that the House approved.

The Senate took no action on HR 5418. However, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a related bill, S 3923 (109th), on September 21, 2006. Neither the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) nor the full Senate acted on that bill.

Also, on January 4, 2007, Rep. Issa announced a list of nine bills of which he will seek enactment. HR 34 is the only intellectual property related bill on his list.

1/16. On January 16, 2007, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) introduced HR 479, an untitled bill that would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) within 180 days to revise the do-not-call telemarketing rules to permit individuals to opt out of receiving certain politically oriented telephone calls.

The bill defines "politically-oriented telephone call" as "any outbound telephone call whose purpose is to promote, advertise, campaign for, or solicit donations for or against any political candidate".

It was referred to the House Commerce Committee. Rep. Doolittle is not a member. The bill has no original cosponsors.

On January 10, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), a new member of the House, introduced HR 372, the "Freedom from Automated Political Calls Act". This bill would direct the FTC within 90 days to revise its do not call rules to prohibit politically oriented recorded message telephone calls to telephone numbers listed on that registry.

It provides that politically oriented calls would include calls "whose purpose is to promote, advertise, campaign, or solicit donations, for or against any political candidate or regarding any political issue, or uses in the recorded message any political candidate's name".

It was referred to the House Commerce Committee.

Rep. Doolittle's bill would pertain to telephone calls, while Rep. Almire's would only affect recorded message calls. On the other hand, Rep. Doolittle's bill would only affect calls regarding candidates, while Rep. Altmire's bill would affect calls regarding either candidates or political issues.

The Majority Leader's weekly calendar [PDF] states that "No votes are expected in the House".

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a webcast event titled "ITAA Tech Law: The new Federal e-Discovery Rules. Are You Ready? Privacy and Data Protection Series with Venable LLP". The speaker will be Damon Wright (Venable). See, ITAA notice.

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee will hold a partly closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 16, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 9, at Page 1705. Location: NIST, Administration Building, Employees' Lounge, Gaithersburg, MD.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Electronic Surveillance Technology Section (ESTS) regarding its Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) related cost recovery process information collection activities. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 229, at Pages 69146-69147.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its review of regulations, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, of FCC regulations that become ten years old in 2006, to determine whether such regulations should be changed, amended, or rescinded. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 229, at Pages 69085-69094. This notice includes a list of relevant regulations.

TIME? Day one of a two day closed meeting of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Science Board's (DSB) Task Force on Space Industrial Base [PDF]. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 15, at Page 3116. Location: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will host a workshop titled "Social Networking, Viral Campaigns, and Humor: What you Need to Know". This is the second of four workshops in a series titled "Online Strategies for Grassroots Advocacy". See, notice. Location: USCC, 1615 H St., NW.

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 16, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 9, at Page 1705. Location: NIST, Administration Building, Employees' Lounge, Gaithersburg, MD.

10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing titled "Trade and Globalization". See, notice. Press contact: 202-225-1721. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Center for American Progress (CAP) will host a panel discussion titled "Local Media Diversity Matters to All Americans". The speakers will be Rep. Xavier Becarra (D-CA), Robert Entman (George Washington University), Philip Napoli (Fordham University), Federico Subervi (Texas State University -- San Marcos), and Mark Lloyd (CAP). Lunch will be served at 12:00 NOON. The program will begin at 12:30 PM. See, notice. Location: Room B-340, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

TIME? Day two of a two day closed meeting of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Science Board's (DSB) Task Force on Space Industrial Base [PDF]. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 15, at Page 3116. Location: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host an event titled "3rd Annual Internet Caucus State of the Net Conference". See, notice and agenda. The basic price is $350. The price for members of the Internet Caucus Advisory Committee is $300. The price for non-profit and academic personnel is $75. The price for "current government employees and credentialed members of the press" is free. Location: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) will hold its organizational meeting for the 110th Congress. See, notice. Press contact: Steve Adamske at 202-225-7141 or Heather Wong at 202-226-3314. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) HLS/Emergency Communications Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Emergency Alert and Warning and the Warning, Alerts and Response Network (WARN) Act". The speakers will be Christopher McCabe (CTIA) and others. For more information, contact Jennifer Manner at jmanner at msvlp dot com or 703-390-2730. Location: Akin Gump, 1133 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

5:00 - 7:00 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host an event titled "10th Annual Kickoff Reception & Technology". See, notice. Location: Room 902, Hart Building, Capitol Hill.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Harnessing U.S. Trade Policy to Solve International Intellectual Property Rights Problems". The speakers will include Sturgis Sobin (Heller Ehrman), Victoria Espinel (Assistant US Trade Representative for Intellectual Property Rights), Brian Pomper (Chief International Trade Counsel, Senate Finance Committee), and Yang Guohua (Counselor for Intellectual Property, Embassy of China). The price to attend ranges from $90 to $135. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1250 H St NW B-1 Level.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in its TV white space proceeding. This FNPRM is FCC 06-156 in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380. The FCC adopted this item at an October 12, 2006, meeting, and released it on October 18, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Order and FNPRM Regarding TV White Space" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,467, October 12, 2006, and notice in the Federal Register, November 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 222, at Pages 66897-66905.

EXTENDED FROM JANUARY 5. Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assist the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in drafting a report on the ability of persons with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. This proceeding is WT Docket No. 06-203. See, original FCC Public Notice [4 pages in PDF] (DA 06-2285) and Public Notice (DA 06-2498) extending deadlines.

The House will not meet due to party retreats.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 17, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 10, at Page 2088. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Assessing the Communications Marketplace: A View from the FCC". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

Deadline to submit additional reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Missoula Plan, an intercarrier compensation reform plan. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 18, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 11, at Pages 2249-2250. This proceeding is CC Docket No. 01-92.

The House will not meet due to party retreats.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 17, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 10, at Page 2088. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

1/22. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) introduced HR 605, the "Seniors Taking on Phony Marketers Act of 2007", or STOP Marketers Act.

This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2326, which provides for enhanced prison sentences for certain enumerated telemarketing related offenses when the defendant targets or victimized persons over the age of 55, to increase the maximum prison term from 10 to 15 years.

The bill would also authorize the appropriation of funds for hiring and training Postal Inspection Service (PIS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel to investigate and prosecute telemarketing fraud cases. It would also authorize appropriations for awareness campaigns at the PIS and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC), House Commerce Committee (HCC), and House Government Oversight and Reform Committee (HGORC).

1/18. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), and other Democrats introduced HR 555, the "Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2007", a bill that would authorize the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to write rules that regulate telephone services provided to inmates.

The recitation of findings states that inmates pay as much as $1 per minute, and connection fees of as much as $3.95, because of the lack of competition at prisons, and commissions paid to the prisons.

The bill would authorize the FCC to set maximum rates, to require service providers to offer debit account services, to prohibit "the payment of commissions by providers of inmate telephone service to administrators of correctional institutions", and to require prisons to allow multiple service providers.

It also provides that inmate phone service providers are subject to the interconnection requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 251 and the procedural requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 252.

The bill preempts state laws and regulations that are inconsistent with relevant FCC regulations.

The bill states that the FCC's regulations shall be "technologically neutral". But, the bill references "telephone service", and does not authorize the FCC to require prisons to allow service providers to offer other communications or IP based services.

The bill was referred to the House Commerce Committee.

1/24. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC)  introduced S 385, the "Interoperable Emergency Communications Act", on January 24, 2007.

On January 9, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee (HCC) introduced HR 338, the "Improving Communications Interoperability Grant Program Act". The two bill address the same topic, but are otherwise different bills

HR 338 would add a new Section 522 to Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to "establish the Improve Communications for Emergency Response Grant Program to make grants to States and regions to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including initiatives to achieve solutions to statewide, regional, national, and, where appropriate, international interoperability". It was referred to the HCC.

"After September 11, 2001, we heard heartbreaking stories of firefighters and police officers who went into harm's way because they lacked adequate information. These brave men and women were unable to reach victims because their systems could not communicate with one another", Sen. Inouye stated. "Then Hurricane Katrina struck in August, 2006, and we found that our first responders faced the same communications failures." See, Congressional Record, January 24, 2007, at Page S1071.

Sen. Inouye summarized S 385. "Our bill provides needed direction to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding its administration of the $1 billion grant program for interoperable communications systems for first responders, which was created by the Senate Commerce Committee early last year. It will be funded by money from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund and administered by the NTIA."

He added that "The bill designates grants for regional or statewide communications systems that will allow first responders to talk to one another during an emergency. It also sets aside funding for a technology reserve for immediate deployment of communications equipment in the event of an emergency or disaster."

The initial cosponsors of the Senate bill are Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). All are members of the SCC. The bill was referred to the SCC.

The House bill has not initial cosponsors. It was referred to the HCC.

109th Congress. The SCC approved a huge communications reform bill on June 28, 2006. It was S 2686 (109th), the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". Subtitle B of Title I addressed interoperable emergency communications. S 385 IS (110th Congress) is a much revised version.

See also, stories titled "Senate Commerce Committee Marks Up Communications Bill" and "Mark Up of Title I -- Interoperable Emergency Communications" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,404, July 5, 2006.

There were stand alone bills pertaining to interoperable emergency communications in the House in the 109th Congress. See for example, HR 6349 introduced by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on December 5, 2006, and HR 5852, was approved by the House on July 25, 2006.

1/24. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) announced in a release that USTR Susan Schwab will participate in the World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland, on January 25-27, 2007, where she will "consult with her counterparts and other trade officials in order to advance the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Round, as well as discuss bilateral issues."

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.