6/27. On June 26, 2010, President Obama gave a speech in Toronto, Canada, in which he stated that "today I indicated to President Lee that it is time that our United States Trade Representative work very closely with his counterpart from the ROK to make sure that we set a path, a road, so that I can present this FTA to Congress."

Obama added that "We are going to do it in a methodical fashion. I want to make sure that everything is lined up properly by the time that I visit Korea in November. And then in the few months that follow that, I intend to present it to Congress."

On June 27, President Obama stated in another speech in Toronto, Canada, that "my administration will work to resolve outstanding issues regarding the United States-Korea free trade agreement by the time that I visit Korea in November".

On June 26, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) issued a release regarding the U.S. Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA). It stated that President Obama "has asked Ambassador Kirk to initiate new discussions with his Korean counterpart, Minister of Trade Kim Jong-hoon, to resolve outstanding issues in a way that levels the playing field for U.S. workers and producers, with the objective of completing that process by the President Obama's visit to South Korea for the next G-20 meeting in November. After the meeting and with those issues successfully resolved, the President would then submit the KORUS FTA to Congress in the following months."

Ron Kirk stated in this release that the OUSTR will work "in the key sectors of autos and beef".

The OUSTR concluded a FTA with Korea back in 2007, which contains sections on telecommunications, information technology, and intellectual property. See, story titled "US and Korea Announce FTA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,559, April 2, 2007.

6/26. U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev gave speeches and answered questions in Toronto, Canada. One of the topics that they discussed was the possibility of Russia joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, transcript with translation provided by the White House news office.

President Obama stated that "we think it is not only in the interests of the Russian Federation, but in the interests of the United States and in the interest of the world that Russia joins the WTO. So this is something that we want to get resolved."

President Medvedev stated that "I will say a couple of words about the WTO, because it’s important for our country. First of all, we have coordinated a common approach today which says that some substantive issues are almost -- are none left. So we moved along all the lines starting from encryption and intellectual property, and ending with state borders and other things like synchronized character of changing the Russian legislation as -- in the process of joining the WTO."

"There are some remaining technical minor problems and our teams have been instructed to work as fast as possible. And we hope -- and we have stated this -- that the work will be finalized by the end of September this year."

Medvedev also said that "As far as cooperation in the Silicon Valley is concerned, yesterday we paid heed that everyone wishes to call the Silicon Valley the Kremlin Valley in Russia. Probably for English there is no difference, but in Russia there is. So in the Kremlin Valley it was very interesting -- the visit, I mean. And I looked at the activities of major companies that will, as I hope, become our close partners for modernization and technological advancement of our economy like -- those like Cisco. And yesterday we inked a memorandum on investment in some projects to the tune of great sums. And also I watched the activities of small companies situated in the Silicon Valley, which set an example of being efficient and effective and in the high-tech business."

He continued: "It's very good that our companies settle in the Silicon Valley. Yesterday I browsed though the search engine Yandex, which is our number one search engine, and one of the major systems for such information in the world. So we should learn how to work and we should not swagger saying that we are clever enough. We have something to learn in terms of organizing business, and this is prompted by my talk with the representatives of Russian business communities that moved to the United States or are here on a temporary basis. Some of them are wishing to work with Russian investors. Many of them want to come back to Russia. But they do have precious experience as the Silicon Valley and what is done there."

He concluded. "And it's first and foremost people -- their minds and their abilities and skills -- and only after money and infrastructure. So we will carefully study the experience of the Silicon Valley, and without replicating, we will use the best practices and samples that exist in California in the framework of that major project that is called the Silicon Valley."

6/28. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the effective date for, numerous changes to its Export Administration Regulations (EAR). These changes affect, among other things, the export of software, computers and encryption products. The effective date is June 28, 2010. The notice requests public comments, but sets no comments deadline. See, Federal Register, June 28, 2010. Vol. 75, No. 123, at Pages 36511-36516.

6/28. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [44 pages in PDF] titled "Export Controls: Observations on Selected Countries' Systems and Proposed Treaties". This report reviews the export control regimes of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom (UK), and how proposed treaties with Australia and the UK would change controls on arms exports. The report states that "Significant structural and other differences exist between selected allies’ export control systems and the U.S. system. Five of the six countries have a single agency in charge of administering export control regulations for arms and dual-use items. In the United States, the Department of State administers controls for arms and the Department of Commerce does so for dual-use items. This difference and others are evident in several major areas of the export control process -- jurisdiction, licensing, enforcement, outreach, and performance assessments. For example, in licensing, France and the United Kingdom use a risk-based approach, allowing a company with a satisfactory compliance record and an established business case to export multiple shipments of less sensitive defense items to particular destinations or identified recipients under a single license. The U.S. export control system for arms is transaction based, generally requiring a license for each proposed arms export unless an exemption applies." However, this report does "not assess the effectiveness of other countries' systems".

6/27. US President Obama and President of the People's Republic of China Hu Jintao made brief statements in Toronto, Canada, regarding US PRC relations on June 26, 2010. On June 27, President Obama stated in a speech , that "we've had discussions with our Chinese partners about what are they doing on nontariff barriers; what are they doing with respect to intellectual property protection; what are they doing with respect to state-owned enterprises or stated-owned banks that are subsidizing industry."

6/28. The Supreme Court issued its opinion [71 pages in PDF] in Bilski v. Kappos, affirming the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). It offered more flexibility than clarity on when processes that can be described as business methods can be patentable subject matter.

Background. The Court of Appeals issued its 9-3 en banc opinion [132 pages in PDF] on October 30, 2008, in In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), regarding patentable subject matter.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the September 26, 2006, opinion [71 pages in PDF] of the BPAI, which affirmed the rejection of a claim for an invention that discloses a method of doing business -- a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading.

The Court of Appeals held that the "claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter" under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court's machine or transformation test is applicable to process patents, and that the Federal Circuit's useful, concrete and tangible result inquiry, discussed in State Street, is no longer to be relied upon. See, 1998 opinion in State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group, reported at 149 F.3d 1368, that business methods can be patentable subject matter

See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Cert in In Re Bilski" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,945, June 1, 2009; story titled "Federal Circuit Curtails Business Method Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,850, October 30, 2008; and story titled "Federal Circuit Receives Amicus Briefs Re Business Method Patents and Patentable Subject Matter" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,743, April 8, 2008.

Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Stevens, who is retiring, wrote a lengthy concurring opinion joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below, and all concurred in this.

The Court held, and Justice Stevens concurred, that the claims at issue in this case are unpatentable abstract ideas. Also, the Court held, and Justice Stevens concurred, that the machine or transformation test is useful, but not the sole test for determining patentability.

The following are some key excerpts from the majority opinion.

"Interpreting §101 to exclude all business methods simply because business method patents were rarely issued until modern times revives many of the previously discussed difficulties. ... At the same time, some business method patents raise special problems in terms of vagueness and suspect validity."

"The Information Age empowers people with new capacities to perform statistical analyses and mathematical calculations with a speed and sophistication that enable the design of protocols for more efficient performance of a vast number of business tasks. If a high enough bar is not set when considering patent applications of this sort, patent examiners and courts could be flooded with claims that would put a chill on creative endeavor and dynamic change."

"In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas provide useful tools. ... Indeed, if the Court of Appeals were to succeed in defining a narrower category or class of patent applications that claim to instruct how business should be conducted, and then rule that the category is unpatentable because, for instance, it represents an attempt to patent abstract ideas, this conclusion might well be in accord with controlling precedent. ... But beyond this or some other limitation consistent with the statutory text, the Patent Act leaves open the possibility that there are at least some processes that can be fairly described as business methods that are within patentable subject matter under §101.

In this case "all members of the Court agree that the patent application at issue here falls outside of §101 because it claims an abstract idea."

"Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act’s text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable ``process,´´ beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. And nothing in today's opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357."

"It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed to make the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identified less extreme means of restricting business method patents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Actand are not inconsistent with its text."

Reaction. The USPTO stated in a release that "The Supreme Court today affirmed the USPTO's decision that Mr. Bilski’s invention was not patentable subject matter as his claims were drawn to an abstract idea. Significantly, the Court ruled that the ``machine or transformation´´ test is not the sole determinant of patent eligible subject matter for process claims, but is nevertheless an important ``investigative tool´´ for evaluating their patent eligibility. The Court also indicated that a business method is, at least in some circumstances, eligible for patenting under Section 101."

It added the "The USPTO will be issuing guidance further interpreting the decision as soon as possible. The USPTO is distributing interim guidance for the examining corps today."

Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "This narrow ruling does little to curb the explosion of patents and patent lawsuits that are crushing real innovators. The majority's decision exacerbates the uncertainty that characterizes the IP system today. It will give no notice to the public about when ordinary business practices can lead to ruinous liability. Businesses will be forced to navigate an increasing abstract patent minefield, raising business uncertainty and legal costs."

Black added, "Ultimately, today's decision benefits few except patent lawyers. Absent action by Congress, the patent lottery will inhibit business and create no jobs -- except for within the patent bar."

Tom Sydnor of the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) stated in a release that the Supreme Court's opinion is "moderate" and "sensible". He wrote that the Supreme Court "rejected implausible bright-line rules that would prohibit the patenting of any subject matter -- be it a business method or software -- that otherwise satisfies the requirements for patentability."

He continued that "The flexibility that the Bilski ruling preserves should promote innovation by ensuring that patents can still protect a broad range of American creativity. Bilski also reminds us of the critical role of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: Flexibility requires careful examination of patent applications, particularly in areas, like business methods, in which prior art may be incompletely collected or indexed."

Robert Holleyman, head of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), stated in a release that "“We strongly applaud the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bilski case ... The court specifically recognized that applying the lower court's very narrow ‘machine or transformation test’ would chill innovation in critically important 21st century technologies such as computer software."

Holleyman added that "Software is a critical tool of production for businesses in every sector of the US and global economies ... Our industry is built on innovation, and the patent law provides critically important incentives to innovators. Today's ruling will enable the software industry to continue to make important contributions to our economy and our common welfare."

6/25. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced in a release that the USPTO and the Hungarian Patent Office have agreed to establish a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program, to begin on July 1, 2010, and to continue for one year. The USPTO wrote that "PPH agreements are cooperative initiatives that streamline the patent system and promote expeditious, inexpensive and high-quality patent protection throughout the world."

6/24. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, sets the effective date of, and sets the comment deadline for, it "interim final rules" amending the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to implement the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010. President Obama signed this Act, S 2968 [LOC | WW], into law on March 17, 2010. These rules are effective on June 24, 2010. Comments are due by August 23, 2010. It is Public Law 111-146. See, Federal Register, June 24, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 121, at Pages 35973-35977.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of June 28.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a book discussion. The speaker will be Clyde Prestowitz, author of the book [Amazon] titled "The Betrayal of American Prosperity". Location: ITIF, Suite 610a, 1101 K St., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 112, at Page 33305. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room.

TIME? The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's HIT Standards Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 109, at Page 32472. Location: Marriott Hotel Washington, 1221 22nd St., NW.

Extended expiration date of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) temporary program titled "Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan". The USPTO stated that under this program "a small entity applicant may have an application accorded special status for examination if the applicant expressly abandons another copending unexamined application. The Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan allows small entity applicants having multiple applications currently pending before the USPTO to have greater control over the priority with which their applications are examined while also stimulating a reduction of the backlog of unexamined patent applications pending before the USPTO." See, notice in the Federal Register, February 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 20, at Page 5041.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding amending its rules promulgated pursuant to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). See, FTC release and notice [18 pages in PDF].

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR-7298 Rev. 1 [207 pages in PDF] titled "Glossary of Key Information Security Terms".

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2009 Separations Freeze Extension Order is scheduled to expire. See also, Public Notice released on March 30, 2010. It is FCC 10J-1 in CC Docket No. 80-286.

Deadline to submit requests to present papers at the New America Foundation's (NAF) and Penn State University's Institute for Information Policy's conference on September 28-30, 2010, titled "The Broadband Act of 2011: Designing a Communications Act for the 21st Century".

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of June  28, and schedule for July 1.

8:30 AM - 4:45 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will hold a public meeting regarding "the relationship of copyright policy, creativity, and innovation in the Internet economy". See, USPTO release, and notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 113, at Page 33577. Location: Polaris Room, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's (HOGRC) Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement will hold a hearing titled "Cloud Computing: Benefits and Risks of Moving Federal IT into the Cloud". See, notice. Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Youths in an Online World". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. the agenda includes consideration of HR 2765 [LOC | WW], an untitled bill to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) will hold a hearing titled "Navigating a Turbulent Global Economy -- Implications for the United States". The witness will be Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. The Department of the Treasury announced that he would testify on "the G-20 Leaders Summit, the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue and the State of the Multi-Lateral Development Banks". See, SFRC notice. Location: Room 419, Dirksen Building.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI) funding under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 19, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 96, at Pages 27984-27986.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding measurement of mobile broadband network performance and coverage. This PN is DA 10-988 in CG Docket No. 09-158, CG Docket No. 98-170, and WC Docket No. 04-36. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 112, at Pages 33303-33305.

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of June 28 states that the House will meet at 9:00 AM.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding tank level probing radar (TLPR) devices to operate in the 77-81 GHz frequency band on an unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. This NPRM is FCC 10-14 in ET Docket Nos. 10-23, 07-96, and 06-216. The FCC adopted it on January 14, 2010, and released the text [21 pages in PDF] on January 19, 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 42, at Pages 9850-9856.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its information collection. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 84, at Pages 23227-23235.

The House will not meet the week of July 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 House calendar.

The Senate will not meet the week of July 5-9, 2010. See, 2010 Senate calendar.

Independence Day (observed). This is a federal holiday. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) web page titled "2010 Federal Holidays".

The National Press Club will be closed.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will consider on the briefs Desenberg v. Google, a patent infringement case regarding methods for facilitating online transactions, App. Ct. No. 2010-1212, a pro se appeal from the U.S. District Court (SDNY). Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Aster Research v. Raba-Kistner Consultants, a patent infringement case regarding computer technology, App. Ct. No. 2010-1088, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (WDTex). Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Heritage Foundation will host two panels titled "Scholars & Scribes Review the Rulings: The Supreme Court's 2009-2010 Term". The speakers will include Walter Dellinger, Richard Epstein, Gregory Garre and others. See, notice. Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

4:00 PM. Deadline to register to attend the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office's (NNCO) public workshop on July 13-14, 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 105, at Pages 30874-30875.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit requests to attend the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) July 14 panel discussions on combating counterfeiting. Three panels will discuss regulatory procedures, criminal procedures, and training and public awareness. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 24, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 121, Page 36062-36063.

6/24. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) release a tentative agenda [PDF] for its event on July 15, 2010, titled "Open Meeting".

First, the FCC is scheduled to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's Universal Service Rural Health Care Fund". The FCC's release states that the purpose of this NPRM is "to expand the reach and use of broadband connectivity by health care providers".

Second, the FCC is scheduled to adopt a NPRM and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding encouraging "investment in terrestrial broadband services within spectrum allocated to mobile satellite services, while maintaining robust mobile satellite capability".

Third, the FCC is scheduled to adopt an NPRM regarding transitioning from paper to electronic tariff filings.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. 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 two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.