4/18. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and others introduced HR 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 [50 pages in PDF], in the House. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and others introduced S 1145, the companion bill in the Senate, the same day.

Rep. Berman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Sen. Leahy, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) held a joint news conference on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, to announce their bill. They argued that their bill is a bipartisan and bicameral compromise that can be enacted into law this year.

Rep. Berman is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (SCIIP). Rep. Smith is now ranking Republican on the HJC. In the 109th Congress, he was the Chairman of the SCIIP. Rep. Boucher is a member of the HJC and its SCIIP.

Sen. Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). Sen. Hatch is a senior member of the SJC. All have been active in efforts to draft patent reform legislation in prior Congresses.

The original cosponsors of S 1145 are Sen. Hatch, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-TX), and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

The original cosponsors of HR 1908 are Rep. Smith, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), Rep. Boucher, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), and Rep. Sheila Lee (D-TX).

Rep. Conyers is the Chairman of the HJC. Rep. Coble is the ranking Republican on the SCIIP. Rep. Lofgren is a member of the HJC and its SCIIP. She represents a Silicon Valley district. Rep. Issa and Rep. Schiff are also members of the HJC and SCIIP. Both represent Southern California districts.

The bill would change the system of patent priority to the first to file system, provide a post grant review process at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), permits third parties to submit pre-issuance prior art to the USPTO, limit forum shopping opportunities by changing venue and jurisdiction procedure, and change the rules for the award of damages.

See, related story in this issue titled "Summary of Patent Reform Act of 2007".

However, the bill contains no provision requiring that patent applicants not intentionally misrepresent a material fact or fail to disclose material information to the USPTO. Nor does it contain change the current rules for the award of attorneys fees. Nor does it address the extra-territorial provision in 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).

Sen. Leahy (at right) wrote a statement, which is also in the Congressional Record (April 18, 2007, at Page: S4685-6), and from which he read at the April 18 news conference. He said that "If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to continue to enjoy the fruits of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient. This bill is an important step towards that goal."

Rep. Berman said that the problem is "questionable quality business method patents", which lead to "increased litigation" and "uncertainty in the market".

Rep. Boucher stated that the legislative process began six years ago. On October 3, 2000, Rep. Berman and Rep. Boucher introduced HR 5364 (106th Congress), the "Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000". See also, Rep. Berman's and Rep. Boucher's 2000 bill summary, and TLJ story titled "Bill Would Change Business Method Patent Process", October 3, 2000.

Rep. Smith stated that "we think that it is going to pass", perhaps in the next few months. He added that it may be "massaged", and that there may be "tweaks along the way".

Sen. Hatch (at right) stated that he hopes that changes will be made to the bill during the legislative process. He cited his desire to change the rules on award of attorneys fees, and to insert inequitable conduct language.

Sen. Hatch and Sen. Leahy introduced S 3818 in the 109th Congress, on August 3, 2006. It was titled the "Patent Reform Act of 2006".

With respect to attorney's fees, S 3818 (but not the just introduced bill) provided that "The court shall award, to a prevailing party, fees and other expenses incurred by that party in connection with that proceeding, unless the court finds that the position of the nonprevailing party or parties was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust."

With respect to inequitable conduct, S 3818 (but not the just introduced bill) provided that "A court may find that a patent is unenforceable only if the patent owner presents clear and convincing evidence that, with respect to the patent at issue the patentee, or a patentee's agent, or privy before issuance of the patent -- (A) failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material information or statements; and (B) did so with an intent to mislead or deceive" the USPTO.

The HJC's SCIIP will hold a hearing on patent reform on Thursday, April 26, 2007.

The House Small Business Committee (HSBC) held a hearing on March 29, 2007, on the impact of patent reform on small businesses. See, HSBC release.

4/18. Senators and Representatives introduced HR 1908 and S 1145, identical bills titled the "Patent Reform Act of 2007", on April 18, 2007. Affected industry groups and companies offered their comments. The strongest support for the bill comes from large software, e-commerce, information technology, and financial services companies. Biotech and pharmaceutical companies remain cool towards patent reform proposals.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) endorsed the bill. Its members include Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Cisco Systems, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, McAfee, SAP, Sybase, Symantec, and many other software and other information technology companies.

Robert Holleyman, head of the BSA, stated in a release that "This legislation is critical to modernizing the existing patent system, which will, in turn, promote greater innovation and productivity ... Unfortunately, opportunistic enforcement of patent rights and patent quality issues have become impediments to innovation and continued economic prosperity. The bills introduced today will go along way towards fixing these problems to maintain our global economic competitiveness."

Holleyman continued that "We are excited by the unprecedented bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and strongly support this important bill".

The Coalition for Patent Fairness (CPF), a group that represents many software, e-commerce, electronics, and financial services companies and groups, stated in a release [PDF] that "The comprehensive changes proposed in the Patent Reform Act of 2007 will strengthen and restore balance to the patent system -- legislative action that has been urgently needed for years."

The CPF also backed S 3818 (109th Congress) in the last Congress.

Its members include other groups, such as the BSA, CCIA, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) and the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA). It also includes many large information technology (IT) companies that have been vexed by patent infringement actions, such as Research in Motion, eBay, and Microsoft. Its members also include Oracle, Cisco, Apple, Adobe, Dell, HP, Lenovo, McAfee and Symantec. While its members are mostly IT companies, there are also some financial services sector members, including the Financial Services Roundtable, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mastercard and Visa.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) stated in a release that "As questionable patents and opportunistic litigants increasingly besiege the U.S. technology industry, reform is urgently needed."

Eric Thomas, of the Innovation Alliance, stated in a release that "The entrepreneurial technology companies that belong to the Innovation Alliance believe patent quality improvement should be the focus of congressional patent reform efforts ... Improving patent quality will take us a long way toward addressing the root problem driving current concerns about the patent system without pulling the rug out from under smaller, innovative companies that have built a business on patent licensing."

The Innovation Alliance members include Qualcomm, LSI, AmberWave Systems, and other companies.

Solveig Singleton of the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) wrote in a short piece in the PFF web site that "Some computer-related enterprises like eBay and Microsoft support the additional procedures. Others, like Qualcomm, want to move more cautiously. Small inventors, biotech, and pharmaceutical firms like the system as it is. This kind of polarization can bring the process to a grinding halt ..."

Ken Johnson of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) did not offer support for the bill. He stated in a release that "pharmaceutical research companies rely on a strong and effective patent system to provide the necessary incentives to develop new life-saving medicines and other cutting-edge innovations. Medicines discovered by our industry require anywhere from 10 to 15 years of research and development and cost an average of nearly $1 billion; this innovation is critically important in the never-ending war against disease."

He continued that "Any reform must strike an appropriate balance, and we look forward to working with all other stakeholders to ensure that the patent system is changed in a way that promotes innovation across industries. We welcome a dialogue with members of Congress and other interested parties on these vitally important issues. We believe a reliable and vibrant patent system will continue to foster the innovation of new medicines that help patients live longer, healthier lives, and guarantee America’s economic competitiveness in the 21st century."

The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a newly formed group, stated in a release that "There should be no doubt that the patent system has served our nation well, but there is a need today to secure the future of innovation with reforms that will improve the examination of patent applications and address issues of cost and uncertainty in patent lawsuits. We are encouraged that the bills that Chairman Leahy and Chairman Berman have introduced will allow the legislative process on needed reforms to advance. However, we are concerned the bills as introduced do not adequately address several critical reforms."

Its members include 3M, Caterpillar, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Procter & Gamble.

It praised the bill for including first inventor to file language. However, it urged the Congress to enact legislation that also includes other recommendations contained in the 2004 National Academies' Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) report titled "A Patent System for the 21st Century".

4/18. Senators and Representatives introduced HR 1908 and S 1145, identical bills [PDF] titled the "Patent Reform Act of 2007", on April 18, 2007.

Section 3 of the bill would change the U.S. system of patent priority to the first to file system. Section 5 changes the rules for the award of damages. Section 6 provides a post grant review process at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Section 8 requires the USPTO to conduct a three year study. Section 9 permits third parties to submit pre-issuance prior art to the USPTO. Section 10 limits forum shopping opportunities by changing venue and jurisdiction procedure. Section 11 gives the USPTO broad rule making authority. Section 12 contains numerous technical corrections and amendments to the Patent Act.

The sponsors of the bill released a section by section summary. This article also offers a section by section summary below.

Section 1 of the bill (at pages 1-2) provides only the title and table of contents of the bill.

Section 2 (at page 2) provides only that this bill amends Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

Section 3 (at pages 2-14) contains various provisions to implement a change of the U.S. system of patent priority to the first to file system.

Subsection 3(a) changes 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) to provide that "A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained if (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use or on sale (A) more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (B) one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, other than through disclosures made by the inventor or a joint inventor or by others who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention."

However, subsection 3(b) provides several exceptions to this new rule. There is an exception for a "‘joint research agreement" to preserve the effect of the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, or CREATE Act, which is also Public Law No. 108-453. (This bill repeals language enacted in the CREATE Act.)

The CREATE Act addressed the August 8, 1997 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., which ruled that derived prior art may serve as evidence of obviousness.

See also, story titled "Representatives Introduce Patent Bill to Encourage Collaborative Research" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 680, June 13, 2003; and story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves CREATE Act to Promote Collaborative Research" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 821, January 22, 2004; story titled "House Passes CREATE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 854, March 11, 2004.

Subsection 3(b) also provides exceptions for claiming an invention if the subject matter previously disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint invention or if the subject matter was owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

Subsection 3(c) amends 35 U.S.C. § 103 to provide that "A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained though the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made."

Subsection 3(d) repeals 35 U.S.C. § 104 regarding "Inventions made abroad".

Subsection 3(e) repeals 35 U.S.C. § 157 regarding "Statutory invention registration".

Subsection 3(f) contains a conforming amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 120 to preserve the effect of the CREATE Act, while subsection 3(g) contains seven other conforming amendments related to the transition to the first to file system.

Subsection 3(h) repeals 35 U.S.C. § 291 regarding interfering patents. Subsection 3(i) then amends 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) to determine the inventor with the right to file an application on a claimed invention

It provides that "An applicant may request initiation of a derivation proceeding to determine the right of the applicant to a patent by filing a request which sets forth with particularity the basis for finding that an earlier applicant derived the claimed invention from the applicant requesting the proceeding and, without authorization, filed an application claiming such invention. Any such request may only be made within 12 months after the date of first publication of an application containing a claim that is the same or is substantially the same as the claimed invention, must be made under oath, and must be supported by substantial evidence."

It continues that "Whenever the Director determines that patents or applications for patent naming different individuals as the inventor interfere with one another because of a dispute over the right to patent under section 101, the Director shall institute a derivation proceeding for the purpose of determining which applicant is entitled to a patent."

Moreover, the application must be filed "not later than 18 months after the effective filing date of the application or patent deemed to interfere with the subsequent application or patent."

The determination will be made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (which is created by Section 7).

Section 4 (at pages 14-21) pertains to oaths and declarations.

Subsection 4(a) amends 35 U.S.C. § 115 regarding the inventor's oath or declaration.

An applicant may submit a substitute statement in lieu of the inventor's oath in certain circumstances, including if the inventor is unable or unwilling to make the oath. Failure to comply with the requirements of this section will not be a basis for invalidity or unenforceability of the patent if the failure is remedied by a supplemental and corrected statement.

Subsection 4(b) amends 35 U.S.C. § 118 regarding filing by other than the inventor. It expands the circumstances under which someone other than the inventor may make an application. It also allows the USPTO to issue a patent to someone other than the inventor.

It provides, in full, that "A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties. If the Director grants a patent on an application filed under this section by a person other than the inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers to be sufficient."

The Constitution provides only that the Congress may secure exclusive rights for "Inventors" in "their ... Discoveries".

Section 5 (at pages 21-28) pertains to damages for patent infringement.

This bill does not address the remedy of injunctive relief, which was previously a legislative issue. On May 15, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in eBay v. MercExhange. The Supreme Court held that the traditional four factor framework that guides a court's decision whether to grant an injunction applies in patent cases. This ruling ended requests that the Congress legislatively achieve the same result. See, story titled "Supreme Court Rules on Availability of Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,371, May 16, 2006.

Section 5 amends 35 U.S.C. § 284, a brief three paragraph section providing for damages for infringement. It adds several new paragraphs, and amends existing language.

The sponsors' summary offers this explanation of the need for the changes. "As products have become more complex, often involving hundreds or even thousands of patented aspects, litigation has not reliably produced damages awards in infringement cases that correspond to the value of the infringed patent. This section, therefore, preserves the current rule that mandates that a damages award shall not be less than a “reasonable royalty” for the infringed patent, and further requires the court to conduct an analysis to ensure that, when a “reasonable royalty” is the award, it reflects only the economic value of the patent’s “specific contribution over the prior art”, i.e. the truly new “thing” that the patent reflects."

The bill first adds a new paragraph that provides in full that "The court shall conduct an analysis to ensure that a reasonable royalty under paragraph (1) is applied only to that economic value properly attributable to the patent’s specific contribution over the prior art. In a reasonable royalty analysis, the court shall identify all factors relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty under this subsection, and the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall consider only those factors in making the determination. The court shall exclude from the analysis the economic value properly attributable to the prior art, and other features or improvements, whether or not themselves patented, that contribute economic value to the infringing product or process."

The bill also adds that "Unless the claimant shows that the patent’s specific contribution over the prior art is the predominant basis for market demand for an infringing product or process, damages may not be based upon the entire market value of that infringing product or process."

Moreover, it provides that "In determining damages, the court may also consider, or direct the jury to consider, the terms of any nonexclusive market place licensing of the invention, where appropriate, as well as any other relevant factors under applicable law.’’;

The bill also revises the existing language regarding the availability of treble damages. The new language provides that "A court that has determined that the infringer has willfully infringed a patent or patents may increase the damages up to three times the amount of damages found or assessed under subsection (a), except that increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d)."

But then, the bill provides that

"A court may find that an infringer has willfully infringed a patent only if the patent owner presents clear and convincing evidence that
   (A) after receiving written notice from the patentee
      (i) alleging acts of infringement in a manner sufficient to give the infringer an objectively reasonable apprehension of suit on such patent, and
      (ii) identifying with particularity each claim of the patent, each product or process that the patent owner alleges infringes the patent, and the relationship of such product or process to such claim,
   the infringer, after a reasonable opportunity to investigate, thereafter performed one or more of the alleged acts of infringement;
   (B) the infringer intentionally copied the patented invention with knowledge that it was patented; or
   (C) after having been found by a court to have infringed that patent, the infringer engaged in conduct that was not colorably different from the conduct previously found to have infringed the patent, and which resulted in a separate finding of infringement of the same patent.

The bill also provides a good faith exception. It states that "A court may not find that an infringer has willfully infringed a patent under paragraph (2) for any period of time during which the infringer had an informed good faith belief that the patent was invalid or unenforceable, or would not be infringed by the conduct later shown to constitute infringement of the patent." The bill goes on to elaborate on the meaning of "good faith".

The bill also provides that the determination of willfulness is to be decided by the court, not the jury. Although, the bill creates this rule in part as a limitation of pleading of willfulness, perhaps in anticipation of 7th Amendment challenges to the shifting of a jury function to the court.

And finally, Section 5 of the bill also provides a prior user defense to infringement.

The sponsors' summary states that "The defense to infringement for patents involving a ``method of doing or conducting business´´ based on the alleged infringer's having reduced the subject matter to practice one year prior to the filing date is amended to apply to all patents and require only that the subject matter be commercially used (or substantial preparations be made for commercial use) prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention."

Section 6 (at pages 28-40) creates a post grant re-examination process at the USPTO.

The sponsors' summary offers this explanation of this section of the bill. "After a patent issues, a party seeking to challenge the validity and enforceability of the patent has two avenues under current law: by reexamination proceeding at the USPTO or by litigation in federal district court. The former is used sparingly and is considered not very effective; the latter, district court litigation, is unwieldy and expensive.  This section therefore creates a new, post-grant review that provides an effective and efficient system for considering challenges to the validity of patents. Addressing concerns that a post-grant review procedure could be abused by cancellation petitioners, this section requires the Director to prescribe rules for abuse of discovery or improper use of the proceeding. In addition, it bars successive petitions in either the first or second window, and prohibits a party from reasserting claims in court that it raised in post-grant review.

The sponsors' summary then provides a thorough section by section summary.

Section 7 (at pages 40-42) provides that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is replaced with a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This section also sets forth the composition and duties of this new board.

Specifically, this new board shall "(1) on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon application for patents; (2) on written appeal of a patent owner, review adverse decisions of examiners upon patents in reexamination proceedings under chapter 30; and (3) determine priority and patentability of invention in derivation proceedings under subsection 135(a); and (4) conduct post-grant opposition proceedings under chapter 32."

Section 8 (at pages 42-43) requires the USPTO to conduct a study, with recommendations for statutory changes, if any, within three years, "of the effectiveness and efficiency of the different forms of proceedings available under title 35, United States Code, for the reexamination of patents".

Section 9 (at pages 43-44) does two things. First, it repeals 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(B), That is, subsection (b)(1) provides that "each application for a patent shall be published ... promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title ..."

But, subsection (b)(2)(B) provides an exception. "If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in paragraph (1)."

Second, it adds a new subsection (e) to 35 U.S.C. § 122 to permit third parties to submit pre-issuance prior art to the USPTO.

It provides, in part, that

"Any person may submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application or other publication of potential relevance to the examination of the application, if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of
   (A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is mailed in the application for patent; or
   (B) either (i) 6 months after the date on which the application for patent is published under section 122, or (ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application for patent, whichever occurs later."

The submitter of such prior art must also submit "a concise description of the asserted relevance of each submitted document" and a fee.

Section 10 (at pages 44-46) addresses certain venue and jurisdiction issues in patent cases. It is directed at the problem of forum shopping for favorable judges and juries, and the trial of cases in districts that have no connection to the case.

This bill does not include the language of the "Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005".

Section 11 (at page 46) gives the USPTO broad authority to promulgate rules that it "determines appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title".

Section 12 (at pages 46-49) contains numerous technical changes and corrections regarding joints inventors (35 U.S.C. § 116), filing of application in foreign country (35 U.S.C. § 184), reissue of defective patents (35 U.S.C. § 251), effect of reissue (35 U.S.C. § 253), correction of named inventor (35 U.S.C. § 256), and presumption of validity (35 U.S.C. § 282).

Section 13 (at pages 49-50) provides first that "the provisions of this Act shall take effect 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any patent issued on or after that effective date".

Section 13 also incorporates the legislative history and intent of the CREATE Act.

It provides that while the bill repeals certain language enacted by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, or CREATE Act, Public Law No. 108–453, this bill "is done with the same intent to promote joint research activities that was expressed, including in the legislative history, through the enactment of the" CREATE Act. It also provides that the USPTO shall administer 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(3), which is added by Section 3(b) of this bill, "in a manner consistent with the legislative history of the CREATE Act that was relevant to its administration by the" USPTO.

4/18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an agenda [5 pages in PDF] for its event on Wednesday, April 25, 2006, titled "Open Meeting".

This agenda includes adoption of rules and a further NPRM regarding wireless licenses in the 700 MHz band. This agenda also includes many items that are of types not usually taken up at Commission meetings.

700 MHz Band Rules. The agenda includes adoption Report and Order (R&O) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806 MHz Band currently used by television broadcasters in channels 52-69 and which is to be made available for wireless services. This item also addresses the applicability of E-911 and hearing-Aid compatibility rules.

The FCC's agenda adds, with respect to this item only, the fourth on the agenda, that the FCC is "waiving the sunshine period prohibition contained in section 1.1203 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1203, until 5:30 pm, Monday, April 23, 2007. Thus, presentations with respect to item #4 will be permitted until that time."

The FCC associates numerous long running proceeding, and one new proceeding, with this agenda item. The titles and numbers of these proceedings are as follows: "Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (WT Docket No. 06-150); Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94-102); Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones (WT Docket No. 01-309); Biennial Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services (WT Docket No. 03-264); Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules (WT Docket No. 06-169); Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band (PS Docket No. 06-229); Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010 (WT Docket No. 96-86)."

DTV Transition Items. The agenda also contains three items pertaining to the transition from analog to digital television (DTV).

The agenda includes adoption of a 2nd R&O regarding the labeling of television equipment in connection with the DTV transition. This proceeding is MB Docket No. 03-15 and RM-9832.

The agenda includes adoption of a NPRM regarding procedures and rule changes related to the DTV transition.

The agenda includes adoption of a 2nd FNPRM regarding mandatory cable carriage of digital broadcast television signals after the conclusion of the DTV transition. This proceeding is CS Docket No. 98-120.

Other Agenda Items. The agenda includes adoption of a R&O and FNPRM regarding processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS). This proceeding is IB Docket No. 06-123.

The agenda includes adoption of a Fourth Order on Reconsideration (OR) regarding requests for reconsideration of the FCC's service specific and technology specific numbering overlay requirements. This is CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 96-98, and 95-116.

The agenda includes adoption of an Order of Forfeiture regarding violations of the FCC's Do-Not-Call rules by Dynasty Mortgage, LLC.

The agenda includes adoption of a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) and 3rd OR regarding petitions for reconsideration against the Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants. This proceeding is MM Docket No. 95-31.

The agenda includes adoption of a MO&O regarding the petitions for reconsideration filed by Jose Arzuago, dba Ocean Communications, concerning FM broadcast stations in Puerto Rico. This proceeding is MM Docket No. 00-123 and RM-9903.

This event is scheduled for 9:30 AM on Wednesday, April 25, 2006 in the FCC's Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW. The event will be webcast by the FCC. The FCC does not always consider all of the items on its published agenda. The FCC sometimes adds items to the agenda without providing the "one week" notice required 5 U.S.C. § 552b. The FCC does not always start its events at the scheduled time, or at all. The FCC usually does not release at its events copies of the items that it adopts at its events. The FCC has not always written the items that it adopts at its events.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) will host an event titled "First Responders Summit: Interoperable and Reliable Public Safety Communications". The event will be audio webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305).

9:00 AM. - 5:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Brookings Institute (BI) will host a conference titled "Is Excessive Regulation and Litigation Eroding U.S. Financial Competitiveness?". Commissioner Paul Atkins of the Securities and Exchange Commission will be the luncheon speaker. Judge Douglas Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will speak on a panel titled "Shareholder Rights". See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a webcast continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "When is an Email an Export? The ABCs of U.S. Export Controls". The speakers will be Linda Weinberg and Karen McGee (Barnes & Thornburg). For more information, contact Mark Uncapher at muncapher at itaa dot org. Audio download copies will be sold after the event.

6:00 PM. Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Applications to participate in Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction No. 72. Bidding for Auction No. 72 is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2007. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 28, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 59, at Pages 14555-14572.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the ABA Section of Antitrust Law titled "55th Annual Spring Meeting". Press contact: Debbie Weixl at 312-988-6126 or orweixld at staff dot abanet dot org. See, ABA release and conference web site. Location: J.W. Marriott, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Proof Positive: New Directions in ID Authentication". See, FTC release and notice in the Federal Register, February 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 37, at Pages 8381-8383. Location: FTC, Satellite Building Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Committee will host a luncheon panel discussion titled "Perspectives on the International MVNO Market". The speakers will include Esther Nunes (Pinheiro Neto-Advogados), a representative of Deloitte Touche, and others. See, registration form [PDF]. The price to attend is $15. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 12:00 NOON on April 19. Location: Wiley Rein, main conference room, 1776 K St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The Alliance for Public Technology (APT) will host a panel discussion titled "Achieving Universal Broadband: Policies for Stimulating Deployment and Demand". The speakers will include David Lazarus (office of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)), Mark McElroy (ConnectKentucky), and Kenneth Peres (Communications Workers of America). RSVP to apt at apt dot org or 202-263-2970. Location: S-115, Capitol Building.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Interoperability Week". See, notice. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds". This NPRM [40 pages in PDF] is FCC 06-164 in WT Docket No. 03-187. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 3, 2006. It released it on November 17, 2006. See, notice of extension [PDF].

? TIME? The Forum on Technology & Innovation will hold a forum. Location?

8:30 - 11:00 AM. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host an event titled "The 9/11 Legislation and the Private Sector". The speakers will include Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. For more information, contact arasmussen at csis dot org. Location: Senate Room, Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St.,  NW.

8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. Day two of a two day workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Proof Positive: New Directions in ID Authentication". See, FTC release and notice in the Federal Register, February 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 37, at Pages 8381-8383. Location: FTC, Satellite Building Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will meet. The co-chairs of the PCAST subcommittee on networking and information technology are scheduled to lead a discussion on the findings of the PCAST review of the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 68, at Page 17908. Location: Room 100, Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 5th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Communications, Broadband and Competitiveness: How Does the U.S. Measure Up?". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

CANCELLED. 12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) FCC Enforcement Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Enforcement in Communications: A State Perspective". The speakers will include Mary Ellen Burns (Senior Counsel, New York State Attorney General's Office), Chana Wilkerson (Maryland Office of People's Counsel), and others. For more information, contact Christi Shewman at christi dot shewman at fcc dot gov. Location: Skadden Arps, conference center, 700 14th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Orphan Works Dilemma: What is it and can it be fixed?". The speakers will be Maria Pallante (Deputy General Counsel, Copyright Office), Allan Adler (Association of American Publishers), and Victor Perlman (American Society of Media Photographers). See, notice. The price to attend ranges from $10-$30. For more information, call 202-626-4363. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The President's Export Council will hold a meeting by teleconference to discuss its draft recommendation to the President regarding trade promotion authority (TPA). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 68, at Page 17838.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Interoperability Week". See, notice. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

8:30 AM. The Center for Democracy and Technology's (CDT) Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus will host an event titled "Location Meets Social Networking: A Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue". See, notice. Location: Renaissance Hotel at Metro Center, 999 9th, NW.

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The April 25 meeting is open to the public. The agenda includes "Processor Technology Roadmap", "Information System Technology in the Military Critical Technologies List (MCTL)", and "Commercial Encryption Technology". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 3, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 63, at Page 15862. Location: Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may hold an event titled "Open Meeting". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet in executive session. See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee (HSC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 1867, bill to authorize appropriations for FY 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the National Science Foundation, and HR 1868, a bill to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

6:00 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Communications Law, Copyright & Digital Rights Management Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Everything You Wanted To Know About Copyright Law But Were Afraid To Ask". See, registration form [PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $50-$125. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on April 23. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Interoperability Week". See, notice. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

TIME? Day two of a two day meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Location?

TIME? The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing on patent reform. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) will host an event titled "Intellectual Property: Driving Global Growth". The speakers will include Chris Israel (U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement), Michael Keplinger (Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization), Vivek Wadhwa (Duke University), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Jon Dudas (head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office), former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (now head of the Association of American Publishers), and Sam Pitroda (CEO of C-SAM and Chairman of the India Knowledge Commission). RSVP to Sonia Blumstein at 205-620-2087 or soniab at ipi dot org. Lunch will be served. Location: Hyatt Regency Washington, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 250, at Page 78451. Location?

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The April 26 meeting is closed to the public. The agenda is undisclosed. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 3, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 63, at Page 15862. Location: Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet "to prepare advice on U.S. positions for responses to: ITU letter of March 14, 2007 to Members of the Council regarding organizational changes within the General Secretariat and the Bureaux of the Sectors of the Union, ITU DM-07/1008 to the entire ITU membership regarding ITU's role on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, and ITU DM-07/1003 to the entire ITU membership regarding the planning schedule for the fourth World Telecommunications Policy Forum on convergence and emerging policy issues". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 13, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 71, at Page 18722. Location: AT&T, 1120 20th St., NW.

1:15 - 5:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will hold a partially closed meeting. The first hour of the meeting, which will be open, will be a discussion of the work of the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Task Force (ECITF), and a discussion of and vote on the International Task Force (ITF) Report. The rest of the meeting, which will be closed to the public, will be a discussion of Global Infrastructure Resiliency (GIR) and Cyber Security. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 6, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 66, at Page 17176. Location: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., NW.

The Alliance for Public Technology (SPT) and the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged (NCBA) will host a brown bag lunch. The speakers will discuss the impact of broadband policies on older Americans in areas such as healthcare, independent living and quality of life.

5:00 - 8:00 PM. The Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion and the Prevention of Piracy, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and George Washington University Law School will host a World Intellectual Property Day event. The speakers will include Carlos Gutierrez (Secretary of Commerce), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Rep. Dianne Watson (D-CA), and Michael Keplinger (Deputy Director General of WIPO). There will also be showcases provided by the Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, Association of American Publishers, Entertainment Software Association, Business Software Alliance, and Software & Information Industry Association. For more information, contact Frank Pietrucha at 202-253-7376 or Suzanne Stoll at 202-955-7999. Location: Rayburn Foyer, Rayburn Building.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers' Committee will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Erin Boone at erin dot boone at t-mobile dot com or 202-654-5919, or Nguyen Vu at nvu at wbklaw dot com or 202-383-3371. Location: Hard Rock Café, 999 E St., NW.

Day one of a two day visit by Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, to Washington DC and Camp David. See, White House release.

There will be no votes in the House.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to its notice in the Federal Register regarding hash algorithm requirements and evaluation criteria. The notice states that the "NIST has decided to develop one or more additional hash functions through a public competition, similar to the development process for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)." This notice is a prelude to this competition. The NIST has drafted, and seeks comment on, minimum acceptability requirements, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria for candidate algorithms. The NIST does not yet want competition candidate algorithms. See, Federal Register, January 23, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 14, at Pages 2861-2863, and notice in NIST web site.

Day two of a two day visit by Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, to Washington DC and Camp David. See, White House release.

4/18. Anne Petera was named Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Programs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See, DHS release.

4/18. Mark Everson, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), will go to work for the American Red Cross. See, statement by Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury.

4/19. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) announced that it will hold an one day event titled "Spectrum Policy and Management: Building Interoperable Public Safety Communications" on Friday, June 1, 2007. See, FCC notice [PDF].

4/18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and sets the comment deadlines for its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding exclusive contracts for the provision of video services to multiple dwelling units (MDUs) and other real estate developments. The FCC adopted this item at its March 22, 2007, meeting. It released the text [19 pages in PDF] of this NPRM on March 27, 2007. See, stories titled "FCC Adopts MDU Forced Access NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,556, March 26, 2007, and "FCC Releases MDU NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1.557, March 27, 2007. Initial comments are due by June 18, 2007. Reply comments are due by July 18, 2007. See, Federal Register, April 18, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 74, at Pages 19448-19453. This item is FCC 07-33 in Docket 07-51.

4/18. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will host a two day event on July 11-12, 2007, titled "Spam Summit: The Next Generation of Threats and Solutions". The deadline to submit requests to participate as panelists is May 18, 2007. Requests should be sent to SpamSummit at ftc dot gov. The deadline to submit written comments on the topics to be addressed at the summit is May 18, 2007. See, FTC notice and Spam Summit web page. The event will be held at the FTC's satellite building conference center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

4/17. The Copyright Royalty Board published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the comment deadline for its proposed rules setting certain royalty rates. Comments are due by May 17, 2007. See, Federal Register, April 17, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 73, at Pages 19138-19144.

4/17. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Kathleen Casey gave a speech in New York, New York titled "The Euro and the Dollar: Pillars in Global Finance". She stated that "As technology and innovation continue to dismantle geographic barriers, and issuers and investors increasingly seek out cross-border investment opportunities, regulators and policymakers have come under increasing pressure to harmonize regulatory frameworks and remove unnecessary regulatory impediments to the free flow of capital."

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 1998-2007 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.