8/22. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its long overdue statutorily mandated report [61 pages in PDF] on patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs), who are derided by some as patent trolls.

While this is a long and informative report, it is not very responsive to the Congressional mandate. Moreover, any proponents of legislation to rein in abusive trolls who had expected this report to contain a thorough condemnation of NPE litigation will be disappointed. Opponents of legislative reform may argue in forthcoming legislative battles that this report backs their cause.

The GAO gave this report the awkward title of "Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality".

Section 34 of the "Leahy-Smith America Invents Act", or AIA, mandated this report. The AIA act was HR 1249 [LOC | WW] in the 112th Congress. President Obama signed this huge patent reform bill into law on September 16, 2011.

Section 34 required that the GAO examine many topics related to "the consequences of litigation by non-practicing entities, or by patent assertion entities, related to patent claims made under title 35". Section 34 also specified in detail the topics to be examined by the GAO.

Report Fails to Address Key Topics. The report does little to address many of the things listed in Section 34, such as the economic impacts of NPE and PAE litigation. In contrast, it covers many topics not required by the statute, such as data on the number of software patents, and software patent litigation.

There have long been calls for reform of substantive patent law, and patent litigation procedure, to limit harmful litigation by the NPEs or patent trolls. Section 34 does not use the term "trolls". However, it is directed at this issue.

Since the beginning of the 113th Congress in January of this year proponents of legislation to limit meritless litigation by patent trolls have offered a narrative of abuses, backed by their anecdotal allegations. This Section 34 report could have provided bodies of data that would either corroborated or rebutted these allegations. But, it did not.

The GAO report points out that as to many of the topics listed in Section 34 the necessary data simply does not exist.

It is also possible that leaders of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) and Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may have given the GAO post-enactment instructions regarding the scope of the report.

The timing of the report may be significant. The GAO released this report on August 22 when most Representatives, Senators, Congressional staffers, industry representatives, and reporters are out of town and/or on vacation.

Trolls, PAEs, NPEs and PMEs. Proponents of legislative reform often use the term "patent trolls". However, neither the statute nor the just released report use this term.

The statute directed the GAO to examine litigation brought by "non-practicing entities" (NPEs) and "patent assertion entities" (PAEs). The GAO report instead focuses on "patent monetization entities" (PMEs), a term not found in Section 34 of the Act.

The report states that an NPE is a person or entity that holds a patent, but does not practice it. This includes individual inventors, research universities, and R&D labs that invent things, and then license others to practice their patents. The report states that PMEs are a subset of NPEs; they "simply buy patents from others for the purpose of asserting them for profit".

The report only addresses PAEs in a few footnotes.

Volume of Patent Litigation. First, the statute required a study of the volume of NPE and PAE litigation over the 20 year period ending on the date of enactment.

This report first assesses overall litigation. It states that "From 2000 to 2010, the number of patent infringement lawsuits fluctuated slightly, and from 2010 to 2011, the number increased about 31 percent. Our more detailed analysis of a generalizable sample of 500 lawsuits estimates that the overall number of defendants in these cases increased from 2007 to 2011 by about 129 percent over the 5-year period. This analysis also shows that operating companies brought most of these lawsuits and that lawsuits involving software-related patents accounted for about 89 percent of the increase in defendants during this period. Some stakeholders we interviewed said that they experienced a substantial amount of patent assertion without firms ever filing lawsuits against them."

"Representatives of several operating companies that we interviewed said they are being sued more often since the mid-2000s." Also, the report states that legal commentators "said that such increases are common during periods of rapid technological change -- new industries lead to more patents and the number of patent infringement lawsuits also increases because there are more patents to be enforced. Similarly, one researcher working on these issues told us that, historically, major technological developments -- such as the development of automobiles, airplanes, and radio -- have also led to temporary, dramatic increases in patent infringement lawsuits."

The report then addresses PME litigation. "Operating companies brought most of the patent infringement lawsuits from 2007 to 2011. According to our analysis of data for this period, operating companies and related entities brought an estimated 68 percent of all lawsuits. PMEs and likely PMEs brought 19 percent of the lawsuits. PMEs and likely PMEs brought 17 percent of all lawsuits in 2007 and 24 percent in 2011, although this increase was not statistically significant. In contrast, operating companies and related entities filed 76 percent of the lawsuits in 2007 and 59 percent in 2011, a statistically significant decrease."

However, "Our analysis of the data from 2007 through 2011 shows that PMEs tended to sue more defendants per suit than operating companies. ... Thus, even with bringing about a fifth of all patent infringement lawsuits from 2007 to 2011, PMEs sued close to one-third of the overall defendants, accounting for about half of the overall increase in defendants."

The report then delves into data on software patent litigation, and volumes of cases by district. Both subjects are important. But, neither is mentioned in Section 34.

Meritless NPE and PAE Patent Litigation. The statute also directed the GAO to report on the "volume of cases comprising" NPE and PAE "litigation that are found to be without merit after judicial review".

The report provides no answer. However, it does state that "Lawsuits brought by both operating companies and PMEs settled or likely settled at similar rates".

Costs of NPE and PAE Litigation. The statute also directed the GAO to report on the "estimated costs, including the estimated cost of defense, associated with such litigation for patent holders, patent licensors, patent licensees, and inventors, and for users of alternate or competing innovations."

The report states that "We were not able to determine litigation cost information from our sample data, and we found very little information on the costs of patent infringement lawsuits in court records. Further, as one stakeholder we interviewed noted, all litigation is expensive, not just patent infringement litigation."

Economic Impact of NPE and PAE Litigation. The statute also directed the GAO to report on the "economic impact of such litigation on the economy of the United States, including the impact on inventors, job creation, employers, employees, and consumers."

There is no section in the report that directly addresses this.

Benefits of NPEs and PAEs. The statute also directed the GAO to report on the "benefit to commerce, if any, supplied by non-practicing entities or patent assertion entities that prosecute such litigation".

The report does not directly take on this mandate in one section. However, there are references spread throughout the report that pertain to the benefits of PME litigation.

For example, in a section devoted to addressing why the number of patent lawsuits per year is increasing, the report states that "economic literature suggests that inventors who do not have the resources or skills to enforce patents on their own benefit from partnering with PMEs that specialize in patent monetization ... For example, one inventor we spoke with said that he was able to sell his patents to a PME that specialized in patent litigation when his start-up company failed, which allowed him to fund a new company. Representatives from a university we spoke with also said universities look to outside entities, such as PMEs, to finance patent infringement litigation ..."

Non-litigation conduct. Section 34 only directed the GAO to examine "litigation". The report examines "litigation".

But, much of the criticism of "patent trolls" is now directed at non-litigation conduct. First and foremost, critics assert that the trolls are sending out huge numbers of demand letters, rather than initiating litigation by the filing of a complaint.

The argument is that these trolls are now targeting not only companies alleged to be making products that infringe the trolls' patents, but also end users of these products, which are often small businesses without resources or expertise for disputing patent claims.

Moreover, the argument goes, the trolls are adept at offering to settle for licensing fees that incent many of their targets to pay merely to avoid the nuissance of contesting the claim. In this situation, trolls' meritless claims never end up in litigation.

Section 34 of the AIA did not direct the GAO to study this. And, the GAO report does not examine this.

The report merely states that "patent assertion occurs without firms ever filing lawsuits, but the extent of this practice is unclear because we were not able to find reliable data on patent assertion outside of the court system". There are a few paragraphs on demand letters, but the information is only anecdotal, and does not go to the practice of targeting end users.

Although, a section of the report on damage awards notes that "One PME we spoke with said that although it tries to sue technology vendors whenever possible, it sues end users most of the time because these are usually profitable companies, and there is greater potential for larger settlements."

Software Patents. Section 34 did not direct the GAO to examine software patents. Nevertheless, there is much in this report about software patents.

It provides data that shows that the number of software patent granted each year has been growing faster than other patents. It notes though that software and computers are becoming more important components of various activities. It also provides data that shows that in recent years software patents granted have equaled grants of all other patents.

The report also states that "Our analysis of patent infringement lawsuit data from 2007 to 2011 shows that on average about 46 percent of the lawsuits involved software-related patents."

However, notably, the report finds that operating companies and PMEs bring different types of lawsuits. It states that "about 84 percent of PME lawsuits from 2007 to 2011 involved software-related patents, while about 35 percent of operating company lawsuits did".

The report continues that "39 percent of suits involving software-related patents were against firms in nontechnology sectors, according to our analysis of 2007 to 2011 data. One representative from a retail company noted that historically, all of the patent infringement lawsuits brought against the company used to be related to products they sold. However, as of mid-2012, the representative said that half of the lawsuits against the company were related to e-commerce software that the company uses for its shopping website --such as software that allows customers to locate their stores on the website -- and were brought by PMEs."

Patent Quality. The report states that "Several of the stakeholders we spoke with, including representatives from PMEs, operating companies, and legal commentators, said that many recent patent infringement lawsuits are related to the prevalence of low-quality patents".

Reaction. Cathy Sloan of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) stated in a release that "While abusive patent litigation is certainly not good news, companies facing the expense of nuisance lawsuits are encouraged that this additional evidence may motivate improvements to specific rules for patent litigation sooner rather than later. This study is yet another reason why Congress should support patent reform measures that have already been introduced."

The CCIA is one of the leading groups advocating for legislative reform.

Matt Levy of the CCIA stated that "We hope that those in Congress who were waiting for this study will see the toll on the economy and will support patent reform legislation like the STOP Act ..., the Patent Quality Improvement Act ..., the Patent Abuse Reduction Act ... and the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013". See, related item in this issue titled "Summary of Pending Patent Reform Bills".

Tim Molino of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) stated in a release that the BSA "applauds GAO's conclusion that improving patent quality is the indispensable and surest way to contain the alarming increase in opportunistic litigation that has targeted BSA member companies and their customers over the past decade".

He added that the "BSA also supports legislative initiatives aimed at directly addressing imbalances in the economic incentives for non-practicing entities and their targets ... Those asymmetries create the conditions for quick, profitable and sometimes unwarranted settlements."

8/22. There are numerous legislative proposals to reform patent law. The following is incomplete list of patent bills pending in the Senate and House.

S 780 [LOC | WW], the "Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales Act of 2013" or "PARTS Act", introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) on April 23, 2013.

S 866 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Quality Improvement Act", introduced on May 6, 2013 by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

S 1013 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Abuse Reduction Act of 2013", introduced on May 22, 2013 by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).

HR 845 [LOC | WW], the "Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013", or "SHIELD Act", introduced on February 27, 2013 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

HR 1663 [LOC | WW | PDF], the "Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales Act of 2013" or "PARTS Act", introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on April 23, 2013.

HR 2024 [LOC | WW], the "End Anonymous Patents Act", introduced on May 16, 2013 by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL).

HR 2236 [LOC | WW], the "Promoting Startup Innovation Act", introduced on June 4, 2013 by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-IN).

HR 2582 [LOC | WW], the "Patents and Trademarks Encourage New Technology Jobs Act" or the "PATENT Jobs Act", introduced on June 28, 2013 by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA).

HR 2639 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013", introduced on July 10, 2013 by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).

HR 2766 [LOC | WW], the "Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents Act" or "STOP Act", introduced on July 22, 2013 by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

S 780 and HR 1663, the "PARTS Act", would amend the Patent Act to provide an exemption from infringement of design patents for certain component parts of motor vehicles -- primarily collision repair parts. These bills are not directed at non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent trolls. See, story titled "Representatives and Senators Introduce Bills to Limit Duration of Automotive Design Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,553, April 23, 2013.

HR 845, the "SHIELD Act", would shift the burden of paying the winner's attorneys fees and costs to the loser in some patent cases, and impose a bond posting requirement on some patent litigants. This bill is directed at patent trolls. See, stories titled "Rep. DeFazio and Rep. Chaffetz Introduce SHIELD Act" and "Summary of HR 845, the SHIELD Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,529, March 4, 2013.

S 866, the "Patent Quality Improvement Act", and HR 2766, the "STOP Act", would both make permanent the Section 18 of the America Invents Act, the "Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents".

S 1013, the "Patent Abuse Reduction Act", would create heightened pleading requirements for patent infringement complaints, limit discovery in patent actions, provide for discovery costs shifting, and shift the burden of paying the winner's attorneys fees and costs to the loser in patent cases. This bill is directed at NPEs or patent trolls.

HR 2639, the "Patent Litigation and Innovation Act", would also heighten pleading requirements. It would also provide for stays of actions against secondary parties, provide for discovery stays, and provide for sanctions for abusive litigation. It too is directed at NPEs or patent trolls.

HR 2024, the "End Anonymous Patents Act", would impose new requirements regarding disclosure of the ownership of patents. Anonymity is an issue for critics of patent trolls.

HR 2236, the "Promoting Startup Innovation Act", would amend 35 U.S.C. § 123, regarding micro entities.

HR 2582, the "PATENT Jobs Act", would provide the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) an exemption from sequestration. This bill is not directed at NPEs or patent trolls.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) [127 pages in PDF] regarding "how to streamline or eliminate legacy regulations contained in the Computer Inquiry proceedings and that are applicable to the Bell Operating Companies". This item is FCC 13-69 in CC Docket Nos. 95-20 and 98-10. The FCC adopted its huge titled "Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on May 10, 2013, and released the text on May 17. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 126, July 1, 2013, at Pages 39233-39237.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding spectrum allocations for space related purposes. This NPRM makes two alternative proposals to modify the Allocation Table to provide interference protection for Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) earth stations operated by federal agencies under authorizations granted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in certain frequency bands. This NPRM also proposes to amend a footnote to the Allocation Table to permit a Federal MSS system to operate in the 399.9-400.05 MHz band, and makes alternative proposals to modify the Allocation Table to provide access to spectrum on an interference protected basis to FCC licensees for use during the launch of launch rockets. This item is FCC 13-65 in ET Docket No. 13-115. The FCC adopted and released this item on May 9, 2013. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 126, July 1, 2013, at Pages 39200-39232.

Labor Day. This is a federal holiday. See, OPM list of 2013 federal holidays.

The House will not meet the week of September 2 through September 6. It will return from its August recess on Monday, September 9. See, House calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

The Senate will not meet the week of September 2 through September 6. It will return from its August recess on Monday, September 9. See, Senate calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

8:30 AM - 2:00 PM. The President's Committee on the National Medal of Science will hold a closed meeting to review and evaluate nominations. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 154, August 9, 2013, at Page 48724. Location: National Science Foundation (NSF), 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference. The DOE stated in its notice in the Federal Register (FR) that the purpose of the meeting is "to discuss progress of the subcommittee for the exascale challenges charge". See also, DOE letter of July 29, 2013. See, FR, Vol. 78, No. 160, August 19, 2013, at Pages 50404-50405.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (FNPRM & NOI) regarding human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. The FCC adopted this item on March 27, 2013, and released it March 29, 2013. It is FCC 13-39 in ET Docket Nos. 03-137 and 13-84. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 107, June 4, 2013, at Pages 33654-33687. See also, story titled "FCC Addresses Cellphone RF Exposure" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,543, April 1, 2013.

EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 4. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding whether the FCC should "require apparatus manufacturers to ensure that their apparatus synchronize the appearance of closed captions with the display of the corresponding video". This FNPRM is FCC 13-84 in MB Docket No. 11-154. The FCC adopted this item on June 13, 2013, and released the text on June 14. See, original notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 127, July 2, 2013, at Pages 39691-39698. See also, Public Notice (DA 13-1785) extending deadlines. See also, story titled "FCC Again Addresses Closed Captioning Mandates for Video Programming Delivered Using IP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,578, June 17, 2013.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initial comments and oppositions to the May 16, 2013 petition [14 pages in PDF of the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers (Amazon, Kobo and Sony) for a waiver of the FCC's disability access rules for e-readers. See, August 1, 2013 Public Notice, DA 13-1686 in CG Docket No. 10-213.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-38 G [30 pages in PDF] titled "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Methods for Format-Preserving Encryption".

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference's Informal Working Group 3 (Space Services) will meet by teleconference. See, FCC's August 22, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1790 in IB Docket No. 04-286). The call in numbers are 888-858-2144 or 646-746-3008. The access code is 8672480.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau (MB) in response to its June 25, 2013 Public Notice (PN) [6 pages in PDF] regarding video description of video programming that is delivered via both television and the internet. This PN is DA 13-1438 in MB Docket No. 11-43. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 129, July 5, 2013, at Pages 40421-40424.

Deadline to submit all comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on matters raised by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) petition for rulemaking [4 pages in PDF] regarding the First Responder Network Authority, aka FirstNet. The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) released a Public Notice (PN) [4 pages in PDF] on August 19 requesting comments. It is DA 13-1775 in PS Docket Nos. 12-94 and 06-229, and WT Docket No. 06-150. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53124-53126, which sets the deadline to submit comments to the FCC.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Risk Factors for Second Request Merger Investigations by the DOJ and FTC". The speakers will be Margaret Calvert (Compass Lexecon), Mike Cowie (Dechert), Michael Knight (Jones Day), Darren Tucker (Bingham McCutchen), and Robert Davis (Venable). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

3:00 - 4:30 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) and the Free Press (FP) will host a panel discussion regarding Verizon v. FCC. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument on September 9. The speakers will be Susan Crawford (Cardozo School of Law), Angie Kronenberg (Comptel), Marti Doneghy (AARP), Matt Wood (FP) and Sarah Morris (NAF). See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) statements supporting or opposing the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments' (ACTA) June 25, 2013 Petition for Rulemaking [7 pages in PDF]. See, FCC notice (Report No. 2989) and ACTA release of June 28.

8:30 AM. The Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is scheduled to release its August 2013 unemployment data.

9:00 - 10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference's Informal Working Group 1 (Maritime, Aeronautical and Radar Services) will meet by teleconference. See, FCC's August 22, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1790 in IB Docket No. 04-286). The call in numbers are 888-858-2144 or 646-746-3008. The access code is 8672480.

10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host a panel discussion titled "Securing a More Sustainable Growth Path for China". The speakers will be Eswar Prasad (BI), Marcus Rodlauer (International Monetary Fund), David Dollar (BI) and Stephen Roach (Yale University). See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Does Aspen Skiing Apply to Intellectual Property Rights?". See, Supreme Court's 1985 opinion in Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands, 472 U.S. 585, and amicus curiae brief [25 pages in PDF] filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with the U.S. District Court (DNJ) in Actelion Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex. The speakers will be Koren Ervin (FTC), Jonathan Gleklen (Arnold & Porter), Markus Meier (FTC), and Ali Stoeppelwerth (Wilmer Hale). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, ABA notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) regarding proposed revisions to the sample reseller certification language and accompanying sections of the FCC Form 499-A instructions. See, Public Notice, DA 13-1700 in WC Docket No. 06-122. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 160, August 19, 2013, at Pages 50415-50416.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Time Warner Cable's (TWC) August 8, 2013 Petition for Preemption [30 pages in PDF] of the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority (NCREA) with respect to the arbitration of an interconnection agreement between TWC and Star Telephone Membership Corporation. See, FCC's August 16, 2013 Public Notice, DA 13-1772 in WC Docket No. 13-204.

Deadline for AT&T, Leap Wireless and others to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to the FCC's order that they disclose their Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecast (NRUF) and local number portability (LNP) data for inclusion in the FCC's record in its review of AT&T's planned acquisition of Leap. See, FCC's August 29, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1842 in WT Docket No. 13-193 and CC Docket No. 99-200). AT&T filed its request for FCC approval of this transaction on August 1, 2013. The deadline to submit petitions to deny and comments is September 27. The deadline to submit oppositions is October 7. The deadline to submit replies is October 15. See, FCC August 28, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1831). See also, the FCC's Office of General Counsel's (OGC) web page for this merger review.

The House will return from its August recess. See, House calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

The Senate will return from its August recess. See, Senate calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Verizon v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 11-1355, the challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) December 2010 Report and Order (R&O) [194 pages in PDF] that adopted rules regulating broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers. The order is FCC 10-201 in GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. See, stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,186, December 22, 2010, and TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,188, December 24, 2010. Verizon filed its brief on July 2, 2012. The FCC filed its brief [121 pages in PDF] on September 10, 2012. See, story titled "FCC Files Brief with DC Circuit in Challenge to BIAS Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,445, September 11, 2012. See also, FCC's surreply brief [15 pages in PDF] filed on January 15, 2013. Judges Rogers, Tatel, and Silberman will preside. This is the first item on the Court's agenda. Location: USCA Courtroom, 4th floor, Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Innolux Corporation, App. Ct. No. 13-1178. Panel C. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:30 AM. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) will hold a hearing in its Section 301 investigation of the intellectual property related actions of government of Ukraine. Section 301 is the statutory means by which the U.S. asserts its international trade rights, including its rights under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. In particular, under the "Special 301" provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, the OUSTR identifies trading partners that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. artists and industries that rely upon intellectual property protection. See, 19 U.S.C. § 2242. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 143, July 25, 2013, at Page 45011. Location: OUSTR, 1724 F St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding its proposed changes to its Export Administration Regulations covering military electronics and other technologies. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 143, July 25, 2013.

8/29. The Washington Post (WP) published an article on August 29, 2013 by Barton Gellman and Greg Miller titled "U.S. spy network's successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary".

It states that the WP obtained from Edward Snowden a "178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program", which disclose a total budget for FY 2013 of $52.6 Billion.

It is titled "FY 2013: Congressional Budget Justification: Volume 1: National Intelligence Program Summary", and dated February 2012. That is, it is a year and one half old.

The article states that the WP obtained only a budget summary, and that in addition, the WP "is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods".

Actually, the WP article publishes very little of the leaked document.

The WP also published a statement by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, regarding the intelligence community's budget. Clapper wrote that "Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats."

The WP article discloses that the FY 2013 budget for the CIA is $14.7 Billion, the budget for the National Security Agency (NSA) is $10.8 Billion, the budget for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is $10.3 Billion, and the budget for the National Geospatial Intelligence Program is $4.3 Billion.

For the U.S. government, fiscal year 2013 ends on September 30, 2013.

Much of the article pertains to intelligence activities and operations that do no involve information and communications technologies.

However, the article states that "The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as ``offensive cyber operations.´´"

It also states that "The NSA is planning high-risk covert missions, a lesser-known part of its work, to plant what it calls ``tailored radio frequency solutions´´ -- close-in sensors to intercept communications that do not pass through global networks."

It also states that "Even the CIA devotes $1.7 billion, or nearly 12 percent of its budget, to technical collection efforts, including a joint program with the NSA called ``CLANSIG,´´ a covert program to intercept radio and telephone communications from hostile territory."

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 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
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2013 David Carney. All rights reserved.