4/30. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and eBay filed a joint Stipulation and Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. v. eBay. See also, DOJ release.

William Baer (at right) head of the Antitrust Division spoke at a news conference. He stated that "This is one further step towards closing an unfortunate chapter for Silicon Valley and other companies who unlawfully agreed to deny their employees the opportunity to receive competing job offers. These so-called ``do not poach´´ or anti-solicitation agreements are per se unlawful, and the Antitrust Division takes them very seriously."

Baer continued that "As a result of investigations into recruiting-related antitrust misconduct, a number of companies -- Adobe, Apple, Google, Pixar, Intuit and Lucasfilm are under a court-ordered injunction to stop these illegal practices. As a result of our action today, eBay also will be under a court-ordered injunction–after the closing of the public comment period and entry of the final judgment by the court." See, transcript.

The DOJ filed its complaint against eBay on November 16, 2012, alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1, in connection with a "no-solicitation and no-hiring agreement between eBay and Intuit" under which "eBay and Intuit agreed not to recruit each other's employees and eBay agreed not to hire Intuit employees".

The complaint alleged that this "harmed employees by lowering the salaries and benefits they might otherwise have commanded, and deprived these employees of better job opportunities at the other company".

The DOJ filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2013.

The proposed judgment provides that eBay "is enjoined from attempting to enter into, entering into, maintaining or enforcing any agreement with any other person to in any way refrain from, requesting that any person in any way refrain from, or pressuring any person in any way to refrain from hiring, soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees of the other person", subject to certain specified exceptions.

Under the Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, these antitrust settlements must be published, open for public comment, and then approved by the District Court. Hence, the DOJ also released an explanation of consent decree procedures and a Competitive Impact Statement.

This case is U.S. v. eBay, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, D.C. No. 12-CV-05869-EJD-PSG.

The DOJ filed a similar complaint on September 24, 2010 in the U.S. District Court (DC) against Adobe Systems, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in connection with their anticompetitive conduct in the hiring of highly skilled technical employees.

The DOJ and the six companies simultaneously submitted a proposed Final Judgment that provided that the companies will refrain "from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for" each others' employees, subject to certain enumerated exceptions.

See, story titled "DOJ Stops Tech Companies' Anticompetitive Hiring Practices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,133, September 27, 2010.

That case is U.S.A. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01629.

4/29. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S 2267 [LOC | WW], the "Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014", a bill that would create a federal private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, similar to the uniform state act, and without preempting any state law.

This bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). Both Sen. Coons and Sen. Hatch are members. There is not yet a companion bill in the House.

Summary of the Article.

Introduction.
Current Federal Law.
Statements by Sen. Coons and Sen. Hatch.
Legislative History.
Congressional Powers.
Supporters of the Bill.

Introduction. Currently, trade secret law is largely a matter of state law. While there are two federal criminal prohibitions of trade secret theft (18 U.S.C. § 1831 and 18 U.S.C. § 1832), neither also creates a private right of action, and there is no stand alone federal private right of action, as there is infringement of patents and copyrights. Victims now file suit in state courts under state laws, and/or report violations to federal prosecutors, which might criminally prosecute violators.

Trade secret law initially developed in state common law. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), written by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), has now been adopted in some form by 47 states and the District of Columbia. Notably, New York has not enacted it, although there is a common law right of action in New York. (See, the ULC's 1985 UTSA, with comments, and the Texas UTSA, enacted in April of 2013, which took effect in September of 2013.)

S 2267 states that it does nothing to preempt any state law.

S 2267 is a slightly revised version of a bill which Sen. Coons cosponsored in the 112th Congress, S 3389 [LOC | WW], the "Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012".

Also, S 2267 and S 3389 borrow from the UTSA. The drafters have cut and pasted much from the UTSA, such as the definitions of "misappropriation" and "improper means". Also, where the language is not identical, it is often similar.

S 2267 is a simple bill -- at least, as simple as statement of a cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets can be. It does not expand much upon existing state law regarding the right of action, or remedies. Also, there are many other things that might be included in a bill to help protect companies located in the U.S. that are targeted by capable, resourced, and persistent cyber thieves in the other countries intent on stealing trade secrets. But, this bill does not contain any other such provisions.

Proponents of this bill site the "patchwork" of state laws. There are 50 sovereign states. But this is an area of uniformity. Proponents also site the problem of sophisticated cyber intrusions originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC). However, this is a limited and narrow bill that would not place the targeted companies in a position to deal with PRC based thieves.

It does not expressly provide for exclusion orders banning imports of goods made by defendants engaged in or benefiting from cyber theft. It does not amend 18 U.S.C. § 1030 to allow investigators for the victimized companies to hack back into the servers of the hackers. It does nothing to enable federal law enforcement agencies to deputize and authorize such investigators. It does nothing to incent companies to share cyber threat or security information with each other, or with the federal government. It provides no additional financial or manpower resources for federal agencies involved in investigating cyber theft. It does not provide for federal imposition of sanctions (such as bans on doing business with) upon foreign actors that engage in cyber theft. It does not provide for federal leverage of visa powers (such as denying visas to people at companies or universities that engage in or benefit from cyber theft).

This bill would do one thing. It would enable companies that have long been able to bring trade secret misappropriation suits in state courts to bring those suits in federal court.

APT1 and its clients have little to fear from this bill. (See, Madiant's February 19, 2013 report [76 pages in PDF] titled "APT1: Exposing One of China's Cyber Espionage Units", and story titled "Mandiant Releases Report on Cyber Espionage by People's Liberation Army" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,525, February 19, 2013.)

Current Federal Law. One important federal statute relevant to cyber theft of trade secrets is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030. It bans unauthorized access to protected computer systems. Hackers located in other countries who access the systems of U.S. based companies to steal trade secrets routinely violate this statute. But, they are beyond the reach of federal prosecutors, and generally work in (and sometimes for) foreign governments who will neither prosecute them nor assist U.S. authorities.

Section 1030 contains a private right of action. However, this has many limitations. First, the foreign actor is often beyond the reach of the U.S. courts.

Second, it only provides a right of action against the "violator" who gained or exceeded authorized access to a protected computer system. So for example, if an economic espionage unit of the military of a foreign government stole trade secrets by cyber intrusion, and then transferred those secrets to a company within that country, there would be no private right of action under Section 1030 against that company.

Third, Section 1030 inhibits important investigations by the investigators for U.S. based businesses. That is, if foreign hackers are gaining access to the systems of their target, gaining privileges, seizing control of servers, and extracting trade secrets, then the target company's investigators want to find out who is doing this, how they are doing this, and what they have stolen. So long as the thieves are accessing things that the company owns, the investigators have authorization. But, if their investigation leads them to servers beyond the ownership or control of the company, they do not have authorization within the meaning of Section 1030 to access that server. S 2267 does nothing to give them that access. (Although, this bill would enable the target company to file an action and obtain a "Civil ex parte order for preservation of evidence and seizure". Of course, the company might not know whom to sue until it has first hacked into and seized information from those servers.)

Another important statute is the Economic Espionage Act. It has two key sections. The domestic section, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes theft of trade secrets. However, it does not contain a private right of action. S 2267 does create a private right of action for violation of Section 1832.

The other section is government espionage provision, which criminalizes theft of trade secrets by any "foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent", and which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1831. It contains no private right of action. S 2267 does create a private right of action for violation of Section 1831.

Next, there is the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended. Section 337, provides a private right of action by rights holders before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for orders that exclude importation of articles that infringe patents or trademarks, or violate certain other intellectual property rights.

However, Section 337 does not reference trade secrets -- either articles that practice stolen trade secrets, or that are made by processes that practice stolen trade secrets. See, 19 U.S.C. § 1337.

S 2267 does not amend Section 337. Nor does it create any analogous remedy in the U.S. District Court for trade secrets.

Finally, two other section are of note. First, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 provides that the DOJ may obtain a civil injunction. This is a brief section. The substantive language of S 2267 would become the new Section 1836. Section, 18 U.S.C. § 1839 contains definitions. It currently provides the definition of "trade secret" that applies to the existing Sections 1831 and 1832. It would also apply to the new right of action that would be created by S 2267. The UTSA contains a different, though similar, definition of "trade secret".

Statements by Sen. Coons and Sen. Hatch. Sen. Coons (at right) stated in a release that "American companies are losing jobs because of the theft of trade secrets every day. This bipartisan bill will empower American companies to protect their jobs by legally confronting those who steal their trade secrets. It will finally give trade secrets the same legal protections that other forms of critical intellectual property already enjoy."

This release states that "In today's electronic age, trade secrets can be stolen with a few keystrokes, and increasingly, they are stolen at the direction of a foreign government or for the benefit of a foreign competitor. These losses put U.S. jobs at risk and threaten incentives for continued investment in research and development."

Sen. Hatch (at left) stated in the same release that "American companies utilizing technology to grow and create more jobs increasingly face threats to the trade secrets that help drive their success ... The legislation we're introducing today takes a big step towards confronting bad actors seeking to steal intellectual property, and provides victims of trade secret theft with the legal protections they need."

Sen. Coons and Sen. Hatch have done little to explain this bill. Neither made statements in the Senate, or submitted statements for the Congressional Record. Neither released a summary of the bill.

Legislative History. In the 112th Congress, former Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), Sen. Coons, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced S 3389 [LOC | WW], the "Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012", a bill to amend Section 1836 to create private rights of action under both Sections 1831 and 1832.

Sen. Kohl (at right) explained why a federal right of action is better than a state right of action. "While State courts may be a suitable venue in some cases, major trade secret cases will often require tools available more readily in Federal court, such as nationwide service of process for subpoenas, discovery and witness depositions. In addition, for trade secret holders operating nationwide, a single Federal statute can be more efficient than navigating 50 different State laws. Finally, our bill permits judges to issue seizure orders to prevent defendants from destroying evidence."

They introduced that bill on July 17, 2012. It was referred to the SJC. Neither the SJC nor the full Senate took any further action on that bill.

They introduced that bill just as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader, was launching a strategy to push just one bill related to cyber security, without any committee markup, without any amendments on the Senate floor, and without enough votes. He failed twice, which may have been his intention. President Obama then proceeded to regulate cyber security by executive fiat.

The Obama administration released its far reaching executive order on cyber security regulation in February of 2013 (EO 13636). That EO is focused on protecting critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, but not on protecting the full range of U.S. based business from trade secrets theft.

The administration also released, on February 20, 2013, a document titled "Administration Strategy on Mitigating the Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets". It contained no legislative proposals. It did not mention S 3389. While superficially it touted a wide ranging set of activities, it disclosed that the administration actually had little in the way of a trade secrets strategy. See also, stories titled "IPEC Releases Administration Strategy Regarding Theft of Trade Secrets" and "AG Holder Addresses Cyber Security and Theft of Trade Secrets" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,525, February 19, 2013.

Sen. Coons discussed possible legislation with AG Eric Holder at a SJC hearing on March 6, 2013. See, story titled "Sen. Coons Proposes Private Right of Action for Cyber Theft of Trade Secrets" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,532, March 7, 2013.

The SJC held a hearing on May 8, 2013 titled "Cyber Threats: Law Enforcement and Private Sector Responses". Government and private sector witnesses discussed the threats, including cyber theft of trade secrets by People's Republic of China (PRC) actors.

Witnesses also offered a wide variety of suggestions for things that could or should be done to limit cyber theft. Notably, none of the prepared statements of the witnesses point to the creation of a federal private right of action.

The SJC scheduled a hearing titled "Economic Espionage and Trade Secret Theft: Are Our Laws Adequate for Today’s Threats?" for March 25, 2014. But, the SJC then cancelled it.

Congressional Powers. This bill does not state which of the Constitutional powers of the Congress it invokes. The intellectual property clause references only "Authors and Inventors" and "Writings and Discoveries", which is now understood to encompass copyright and patent, but not trade secrets, trademarks, or other forms of intellectual property.

This bill would place the new right of action in Title 18, the criminal code. But, the Constitutional gives no general authority to prohibit crimes to the Congress. Moreover, this bill is civil, and not criminal, in nature.

The most likely authority for this bill is the commerce clause, which provides that "The Congress shall have the Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

When the Congress exercising its authority under the Commerce Clause, the question arises to what extend it preempts state laws on the same subject. S 2267 states that "Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed ... to preempt any other provision of law."

Support for the Bill. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) stated in a release that this bill "would help to address this challenge by providing access to federal civil enforcement for trade secrets theft. Right now, businesses must go state-by-state to defend their rights."

The NAM added that it would also "provide a critical foundation for essential trade secrets commitments in U.S. trade agreements, including those under negotiation with Europe and 11 Pacific Rim nations." The NAM refers to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

Victoria Espinel, head of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) stated in a release that "There is a clear need for legislative action: trade secret theft costs the United States hundreds of billions of dollars a year".

She added that "Current federal law is insufficient. There needs to be a uniform federal standard with a well-balanced private right of action that allows trade secret owners to sue when their intellectual property is misappropriated."

Espinel was, until recently, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the Executive Office of the President. It was her office that released the February 2013 administration policy on trade secret protection. It was 121 pages, but did not advocate any legislation.

4/29. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S 2267 [LOC | WW], the "Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014", a bill that would create a federal private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, similar to the uniform state act, and without preempting any state law.

This bill would amend Chapter 90, titled "Protection of Trade Secrets", of Title 18, the criminal code. Chapter 90 is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1839.

This bill would create a new private right of action, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1836, which currently is a short section allowing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain civil injunctions

The bill provides that "An owner of a trade secret may bring a civil action under this subsection if the person is aggrieved by (A) a violation of section 1831(a) or 1832(a); or (B) a misappropriation of a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce."

18 U.S.C. § 1832 criminalizes theft of trade secrets. 18 U.S.C. § 1831 criminalizes theft of trade secrets by any "foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent".

The new federal right of action under the above quoted subsection (B) is brief. Much of the meaning of this right of action lies in the definitions.

First, the bill defines "misappropriation" as acquisition or disclosure. Misappropriation by acquisition means "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means".

Misappropriation by disclosure means:

"disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who--
   (i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
   (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was--
      (I) derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire the trade secret;
      (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or
      (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or
   (iii) before a material change of the position of the person, knew or had reason to know that--
      (I) the trade secret was a trade secret; and
      (II) knowledge of the trade secret had been acquired by accident or mistake"

Both use the term "improper means". The bill defines this term as "(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; and (B) does not include reverse engineering or independent derivation".

Both the definitions for "misappropriation" and "improper means" are take from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).

The key definition of "trade secret" is already in Chapter 90. 18 U.S.C. § 1839 provides that it means "all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if -- (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public".

The bill does not contain any special pleading requirements. It does specify special procedure for obtaining a "Civil ex parte order for preservation of evidence and seizure".

The bill provides for injunctive relief "to prevent any actual or threatened violation", "requiring affirmative actions to be taken to protect a trade secret", and "in exceptional circumstances that render an injunction inequitable, that conditions future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited".

The bill provides for the award of damages "for actual loss caused by the misappropriation", and "for any unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation of the trade secret that is not addressed in computing damages for actual loss". Alternatively, it provides, "in lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret".

Also, the bill provides for the award of treble damages, and reasonable attorneys fees, for willful or malicious misappropriation.

The bill provides a five year statute of limitations. It also provides that "Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed to ... preempt any other provision of law."

5/1. The Senate approved a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Nancy Moritz (at right) to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) by a vote of 60-38. See, Roll Call No. 126. She was previously a Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court for several years (appointed by then Governor Mark Parkinson). Before that, she was a Judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals (appointed by then Governor Kathleen Sebelius). Before that, she worked in the Office of the U.S. Attorney (DKan). And before that, she worked for the law firm of Spencer Fane Britt & Browne.

4/28. The Senate confirmed Michelle Friedland to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) by a vote of 51-40. See, Roll Call No. 108. It was a nearly straight party line vote. All but one of the yes votes were cast by Democrats. All of the no votes were cast by Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted yes. See also, stories titled "Obama Nominates Pharmaceutical Attorney for 9th Circuit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,587, August 6, 2013, and "Court of Appeals Appointments" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,643, April 21, 2014.

5/1. The Senate confirmed George Hazel to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (DMd) by a vote of 95-0. See, Roll Call No. 128. He was the Chief Deputy State's Attorney in Baltimore for several years. Before that, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia and Maryland. Before that, he worked for the law firm of Weil Gotshal.

5/1. The Senate confirmed Theodore Chuang to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (DMd) by a vote of 53-42. See, Roll Call No. 127. It was a straight party line vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) explained that he voted no " because of his involvement in the State Department's response to Congressional inquiries into the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee without citing any valid privilege. I cannot support any nominee who played a part in stonewalling attempts by Congress to uncover the truth surrounding the events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012."

5/1. President Obama nominated Pamela Pepper to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (EDWisc). See, White House news office release and release. She has been a bankruptcy judge since 2005.

5/1. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it held over consideration of four Florida District Court nominees: Carlos Mendoza (MDFl), Darren Gayles (SDFl), Paul Byron (MDFl), and Beth Bloom (SDFl). Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the SJC, stated that "I don't think that there is any controversy on any of them". Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the SJC, said "I agree". All four are again on the SJC's agenda for its executive business meeting of May 8, 2014.

4/30. The Senate confirmed Jon Levy to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (DMaine) by a vote of 75-20. See, Roll Call No. 123. He was previously an Associate Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for 12 years.

4/30. The Senate confirmed Sheryl Lipman to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (WDTenn) by a vote of 95-0. See, Roll Call No. 118. She was previously University Counsel at the University of Memphis.

4/30. The Senate confirmed Stanley Bastian to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (EDWash) by a vote of 95-0. See, Roll Call No. 119. He was a long time attorney at the law firm of Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward, in Wenatchee, Washington.

4/30. The Senate confirmed Manish Shah to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (NDIll) by a vote of 95-0. See, Roll Call No. 120. He worked in the Office of the U.S. Attorney (NDIll) from 2001 until this confirmation.

4/30. The Senate confirmed Daniel Crabtree to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (DKan) by a vote of 94-0. See, Roll Call No. 121. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) spoke in support of Crabtree. He was a long time attorney at the law firm of Stinson Leonard & Street (and before the recent merger, Stinson Morrison & Hecker, and before that Stinson Mag & Fizzell).

4/30. The Senate confirmed Cynthia Bashant to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (SDCal) by a vote of 94-0. See, Roll Call No. 122. She was previously a California state trial court judge in San Diego.

The House will not meet. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM.

Day one of a two day event titled "Public Safety Broadband Summit & Expo". Event has sold out. See, event web site. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Copyright Office (CO) will hold a hearing to assist it in preparing a study of U.S. law recognizing and protecting "making available" and "communication to the public" rights for copyright holders. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 37, February 25, 2014, at Pages 10571-10573. The deadline to submit comments in advance of this hearing is April 4, 2014.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI) will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Economics in a Changing Video and Data Environment". The speakers will include Stanley Besen (Charles River Associates), Joseph Cavender (Level 3 Communications), David Clark (MIT's Communications Futures Program), Bob Crandall (TPI and Brookings Institution), and Scott Wallsten (TPI). Breakfast will be served from 8:30 AM. Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: City Club, 555 13th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in H-W Technology v. Overstock.com, App. Ct. No. 14-1054. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in CEATS v. Continental Airlines, App. Ct. No. 13-1529. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Internet Caucus will host an event titled "State of the Net Wireless". See, notice. Location: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Recent Antitrust Developments: March and April 2014". The focus will be developments in the health care and pharmaceuticals markets. The speakers will be Kellie Kemp (WSGR) and Megan Browdie, Jacqueline Grise, Tanisha James, and Howard Morse (all of Cooley). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Cooley, Suite 700, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host an event at which Michael Green (CSIS), James Steinberg (Syracuse University), and Michael O'Hanlon (BI) will discuss their book titled "Strategic Reassurance and Resolve: U.S.-China Relations in the Twenty-First Century". See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development(NITRD) Program's Middleware and Grid Interagency Cooridination (MAGIC) Team meets the first Wednesday of each month. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 226, November 22, 2013, at Page 70076. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "NSA Telephonic and Electronic Surveillance: The Executive, Legislative and Judicial Drivers of Reform and Likely Outcomes". The speakers will be David Valdez (FCC), Allan Friedman (George Washington University), Amie Stepanovich (Access), Kevin Bankston (New America Foundation), Douglas Bonner (Drinker Biddle & Reath), Michael Sussman (Perkins Coie), Marc Zwillinger (ZwillGen). Prices vary. CLE credits. No webcast. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on May 2. See, notice. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, Conference Room 2B, 1500 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding text to 911 service. The FCC adopted this item on January 30, 2014, and released it on January 31, 2014. It is FCC 14-6 in PS Docket Nos. 10-255 and 11-153. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 43, March 5, 2014, at Pages 12442-12458.

The House will meet at 12:00 NOON for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Auction 84, which is for certain AM broadcast construction permits, is scheduled to begin. See, November 18, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-2168 in AU Docket No. 13-268) and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 231, December 2, 2013, at Pages 72081-72086.

Day two of a two day event titled "Public Safety Broadband Summit & Expo". Event has sold out. See, event web site. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a three day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Annapolis, MD.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "E-Rate Modernization Workshop". See, Public Notice (DA 14-563 in WC Docket No. 13-184) with agenda. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC/HIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, DHHS notice and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 243, December 18, 2013, at Page 76627. Location: __.

10:00 AM. There will be a news conference titled "Responding to the Second Digital Divide". This "digital divide" is between those who have access to information technology and know how to use it, and those who have access but don not know how to use is. The speakers will be Clarence Anthony (National League of Cities), John Horrigan (consultant), Richard Reyes-Gavilan (District of Columbia Public Library), and Barbara Stripling (American Library Association). See, notice. Location: Zenger Room, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, App. Ct. No. 13-1504. Panel D. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in I/P Engine. v. AOL, App. Ct. No. 13-1307. Panel D. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Essociate v. Azoogle.com, App. Ct. No. 13-1446. Panel F. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a closed hearing on undisclosed matters. See, notice. Location: Room 219, Hart Building.

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt rules for consideration of several bills, including HR 4438 [LOC | WW, the "American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014". See, notice. Location: Room H-313, Capitol Building.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding Widelity Inc.'s report regarding the post-incentive auction transition. This PN is DA 14-389 in GN Docket No. 12-268. The FCC released it on March 20, 2014. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 61, March 31, 2014, at Pages 18026-18027.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House may consider HR 4438 [LOC | WW, the "American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014". See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 63, April 2, 2014, at Page 18605. Location: National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "University Research Funding: Still Lagging Behind and Showing No Signs of Improvement". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), William Bonvillian (MIT), and Kathleen Kingscott (IBM). See, notice. Location: Room 325, Russell Building.

9:00 AM - 5:15 PM. Day two of a three day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Annapolis, MD.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold an event titled "Seminar on Privacy Implications of Consumer Generated and Controlled Health Data". There will be a presentation titled "Health Data Flows" by Latanya Sweeney (FTC Chief Technologist). There will be a presentation titled "A Snapshot of Data Sharing by Select Health and Fitness Apps" by Jared Ho (FTC Mobile Technology Unit). There will then be a panel discussion. The speakers will be Cora Han and Kristen Anderson (both of the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection), Christopher Burrow (Humetrix), Joseph Hall (Center for Democracy & Technology), Sally Okun (PatientsLikeMe), Heather Patterson (New York University), and Joy Pritts (DHHS).See, notice. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Samsung Electronics v. USITC, App. Ct. No. 13-1519. Panel H. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book titled "Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law and the Common Good". The speakers will be the author, Tom Bell (Chapman University School of Law), Chirstopher Newman (George Mason University School of Law), and and Jim Harper (Cato). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Privacy and Social Media". The speakers will be Richard Santalesa (The Sm@rtEdgeLaw Group), Christopher Hearsey (Bigelow Aerospace), Adrian Fontecilla (Proskauer Rose), Peter Gillespie (Fisher & Phillips), and Jessica Flanigan (Monument Policy Group). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 PM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's (SAC) Subcommittee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "Investing in Cybersecurity". The witnesses will be Phyllis Schneck (DHS/NPPD Deputy Under Secretary -- Cyber), Peter Edge (DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement), William Noonan (DHS's Secret Service), Jonathan Katz (University of Maryland), Dave Mahon (CenturyLink), Scott Bowers (Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives), and Christopher Peters (Entergy Corporation). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 192, Dirksen Building.

2:00 PM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's (SAC) Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will hold a hearing titled "FY15 Funding for Federal Information Technology Investments". The witnesses will be Steven VanRoekel (Office of Management & Budget), Dan Tangherlini (General Services Administration), Katherine Archuleta (Office of Personnel Management), and David Powner (Government Accountability Office). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 192, Dirksen Building.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House may consider HR 4438 [LOC | WW, the "American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014". See, Rep. Cantor's schedule.

8:30 AM - 2:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 63, April 2, 2014, at Page 18605. Location: National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Evolving Media Landscape: What do the Data Show?". The speakers will include Michael Smith (TPI and Carnegie Mellon University), Joel Waldfogel (University of Minnesota), Alejandro Zentner (University of Texas at Dallas), and Thomas Lenard (TPI). Breakfast will be served from 8:30 AM. Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: City Club, 555 13th St., NW.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Accelerating Sustainability: Maximizing the Benefits of Connected Cars". See, notice. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day three of a three day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Annapolis, MD.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law will hold a hearing on Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Couterterrorism and Intelligence and Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protections, and Security Technologies will hold a hearing titled "Assessing Persistent and Emerging Cyber Threats to the U.S. Homeland". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda once again includes consideration of S 1720 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013". See, stories titled "Patent Legislation Update" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,637, April 7, 2014, and "Senate Judiciary Committee Members Still Working on Patent Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,641, April 17, 2014. The agenda also includes consideration of four District Court nominees: Carlos Mendoza (MDFl), Darren Gayles (SDFl), Paul Byron (MDFl), and Beth Bloom (SDFl). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (SHSGAC) will hold a hearing titled "Identifying Critical Factors for Success in Information Technology Acquisitions". The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Cross Atlantic Capital Partner v. Facebook, App. Ct. No. 13-1596. Panel L. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME? The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will meet to consider two advisory opinions regarding application of the federal election campaign finance regulatory regime to Bitcoins. See, Draft A and Draft B. See, story titled "FEC to Consider Bitcoin Advisory Opinions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,642, April 18, 2014. Location: FEC, 999 E St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Antitrust Analysis in Digital Platform Markets: Just One Side of the Story?". The speakers will be Lisa Kimmel (FTC), Aaron Hoag (DOJ), Pete Levitas (Arnold & Porter), Marc Rysman (Boston University), and Scott Sher (WSGR). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "The Impact of Regulatory and Industry Standards on Patents". The speakers will be Logan Breed (Hogan Lovells), Jorge Contreras (American University law school), Michelle Herman (Intellectual Ventures), and Michael Hawes (Baker Botts). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Compulsory Video Licenses of Title 17". The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protections, and Security Technologies will hold a hearing titled "Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Threat to Critical Infrastructure". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a closed hearing on undisclosed matters. See, notice. Location: Room 219, Hart Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Conflicts of Interest in Buy/Sell Transactions: How to Spot and Avoid Them". The speakers will be Ted Frank (Arnold & Porter), Alison Bost (Womble Carlyle), Bernard DiMuro (DiMuro Ginsburg), Saul Singer (District of Columbia Bar), Lawrence Movshin (Wilkinson Barker Knauer), Marni Byrum (McQuade Byrum), George Clark, and Michael Frisch (Georgetown University Law Center). CLE credits. No webcast. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on May 7. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule. The House may consider HR 4438 [LOC | WW], the "American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014".

TIME? Day six of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a partially closed meeting. The agenda includes reports on "science, technology, and innovation in China". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 81, April 28, 2014, at Page 23340. Location: National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will hold a meeting regarding "ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting". Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 40, February 28, 2014, at Pages 11400-11401. Location: BEA, 1441 L St.,  NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, App. Ct. No. 13-1640. Panel N. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Innovative Biometric Technology v. Toshiba America, App. Ct. No. 13-1288. Panel M. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public hearing on its memorandum titled "Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products (Laws of Nature/Natural Products Guidance)'', released on March 4, 2014. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 74, April 17, 2014, at Pages 21736-21738. See also, story titled "USPTO to Hold Hearing on Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting Laws of Nature" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,640, April 16, 2014. Location: USPTO, Madison Auditorium, 600 Dulany St., Alexandria, VA.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding the FCC's attributable material relationship rule. This PN is DA 14-414 in GN Docket Nos. 12-268 and 13-185 and WT Docket No. 05-211. The FCC released it on March 27, 2014. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 71, April 14, 2014, at Pages 20854-20855.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding FCC rules that require fax advertisements sent to a consumer who has provided prior express invitation or permission to include an opt-out notice. This PN is DA 14-556 in CG Docket Nos. 02-278 and 05-338. The FCC released it on April 25, 2014.

Mothers Day.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Brookings Institution (BI) will host a program titled "35 Years Later: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Taiwan Relations Act". The speakers will include Shen Lyushun (Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative). See, CSIS notice and BI notice. Location: CSIS, 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. Marc Levoy (Stanford University) will deliver a presentation titled "Google Glass and the Future of Photography". This is a ticketed event. The price to attend ranges from free to $5. See, notice. Location: National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW.

CANCELLED. 6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Transition to All IP Networks: Update on Issues and Progress at State Commissions". The speakers will be __. Prices vary. CLE credits. No webcast. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on May 9. See, notice. Location: __.

EXTENDED TO JUNE 26. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding whether to eliminate or modify the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. The FCC adopted and released this FNPRM on March 31, 2014. It is FCC 14-29 in MB Docket No. 10-71. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 69, April 10, 2014, at Pages 19849-19860. See, Public Notice (DA 14-525) extending deadlines.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding location surveillance. This FNPRM is FCC 14-13 in PS Docket No. 07-114. The FCC adopted it on February 20, 2014, and released it on February 21. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 60, March 28, 2014, at Pages 17819-17847. See also, story titled "FCC Proposes Changes to Location Surveillance Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,629, February 24, 2014.

EXTENDED TO JUNE 12. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) that requests comments to refresh the record regarding the ability of non-English speakers to access emergency information. This PN is DA 14-336 in EB Docket No. 04-296. The FCC released it on March 11, 2014. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 60, March 28, 2014, at Pages 17490-17493. See, April 24 Public Notice (DA 14-552) extending deadlines.

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 1998-2014 David Carney. All rights reserved.