6/2. The Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, Sup. Ct. No. 12-786, reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

This case involves whether a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be so held liable. The Court of Appeals held in its August 31, 2012 opinion that a defendant could be so held liable. Hence, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Sam Alito (at right) wrote a short opinion for a unanimous Court. No Justice wrote a concurring opinion.

The Court wrote that "liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement" and inducement liability may arise if, but only if, there is direct infringement.

The Court continued that "The Federal Circuit's analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent. A method patent claims a number of steps; under this Court's case law, the patent is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out. ... This principle follows ineluctably from what a patent is: the conferral of rights in a particular claimed set of elements."

The Supreme Court also wrote that "The Federal Circuit's contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards. If a defendant can be held liable under §271(b) for inducing conduct that does not constitute infringement, then how can a court assess when a patent holder’s rights have been invaded? What if a defendant pays another to perform just one step of a 12-step process, and no one performs the other steps, but that one step can be viewed as the most important step in the process? In that case the defendant has not encouraged infringement, but no principled reason prevents him from being held liable for inducement under the Federal Circuit's reasoning, which permits inducement liability when fewer than all of a method’s steps have been performed within the meaning of the patent. The decision below would require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law: one for liability for direct infringement, and one for liability for inducement."

Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) stated in a release that "We are pleased that the Supreme Court adopted much of the reasoning urged by CEA, CTIA and MetroPCS in our joint amicus brief. With its decision, the court avoided muddling the current standard for patent law and creating a zone of uncertainty for innovators and entrepreneurs who would no longer be sure what was or was not infringing conduct. In order to fulfill its constitutional function of promoting innovation, patent law must be clear, consistent and understandable. We commend the Supreme Court for setting aside the lower court decision and restoring common sense to patent infringement law."

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 30, 2014. See, transcript.

This case is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-786, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, and 2009-1417. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, D.C. Nos. 06-CV-11109 and 06-CV-11585.

6/2. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Sup. Ct. No. 13-369, vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

The questions presented in this case are "Does the Federal Circuit's acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations -- so long as the ambiguity is not ``insoluble´´ by a court -- defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?" and "Does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?".

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded. It held that "a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also, April 26, 2013, opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. No Justices wrote a concurring opinion.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 28, 2014. See, transcript.

This case is Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 13-369, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2012-1289. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New York, D.C. No. 10-CV-7722.

4/29. The Supreme Court released its opinion in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, Sup. Ct. No. 12-1184, reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The Supreme Court also released its opinion in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management System, Sup. Ct. No. 12-1163, vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit.

35 U.S.C. § 285 provides in full that "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party."

These two cases will make it easier for the prevailing party to recover an award of attorneys fees. However, legislation pending in the Congress would go still further, by amending Section 285.

Octane Fitness. The question presented in Octane Fitness was "Does the Federal Circuit's promulgation of a rigid and exclusive two-part test for determining whether a case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriate a district court's discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court's precedent, thereby raising the standard for accused infringers (but not patentees) to recoup fees and encouraging patent plaintiffs to bring spurious patent cases to cause competitive harm or coerce unwarranted settlements from defendants?"

The Court of Appeals' October 24, 2012 opinion followed its holding in Brooks Furniture v. Dutailier, 393 F. 3d 1378 (2005). The Court of Appeals held in Brooks that a case may be deemed exceptional under Section 285 only in two limited circumstances: "when there has been some material inappropriate conduct," or when the litigation is both "brought in subjective bad faith" and "objectively baseless." Moreover, the Court of Appeals held in Brooks that "the underlying improper conduct and the characterization of the case as exceptional must be established by clear and convincing evidence".

The Supreme Court held that the Brooks "formulation is too rigid". It held that an exceptional case "is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." (Parentheses in original.)

The Supreme Court continued that "District courts may determine whether a case is ``exceptional´´ in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances." There is no precise rule or formula.

The Supreme Court also rejected the Court of Appeals' requirement that patent litigants establish their entitlement to fees under Section 285 by clear and convincing evidence.

This case is Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-1184, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 2011-1521 and 2011-1636. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for District of Minnesota, D.C. No. 09-CV-0319. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Justice Scalia did not join in a few footnotes.

Highmark. The question presented in Highmark was "Whether a district court's exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.

The Supreme Court held that "an appellate court should review all aspects of a district court’s §285 determination for abuse of discretion".

See also, August 7, 2012 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

This case is Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-1163, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. 2011-1219. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, D.C. No. 03-CV-1384. Justice Sotomayor wrote this short opinion for a unanimous court.

Pending Legislation. Both of these opinion merely construe the existing language of Section 285.

HR 3309 [LOC | WW], the "Innovation Act", the patent bill passed by the House in December 5, 2013, focuses on litigation procedure, including pleading requirements, limitations upon discovery, and fee shifting.

HR 3309 would amend Section 285 to provide that "The court shall award, to a prevailing party, reasonable fees and other expenses incurred by that party in connection with a civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, unless the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or parties were reasonably justified in law and fact or that special circumstances (such as severe economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust."

Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "the Supreme Court Justices recognize the burden that abusive patent litigation puts on productive U.S. companies".

Black added that while these cases will "make it easier to shift fees in exceptional cases", "legislation is still needed to more comprehensively address the multiple problems that characterize abusive patent litigation tactics. It's will still be too easy for patent trolls to file nuisance lawsuits and strategically run up the defendant's legal costs in hopes of extracting settlements from them."

The Senate has not passed HR 3309, or any other bill regarding fee shifting in patent cases.

5/29. Rep. George Holding (R-NC) and others introduced HR 4772 [LOC | WW | TLJ], the "Respecting Senior Performers as Essential Cultural Treasures Act", which comes close to producing the acronymal title of "RESPECT Act". This bill would amend the Copyright Act to address payment of royalties for digital performances of sound recordings made before 1972.

This bill would not confer copyright protection upon sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Rather, this bill would provide that any transmitting entity that publicly performs digital sound recordings (internet and satellite radio) pursuant to the statutory licenses of 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114 shall make royalty payments for transmission of pre-1972 sound recordings.

The bill would also create a cause of action in the U.S. District Court for failure to make such royalty payments.

The bill would not preempt current state laws that protect pre-1972 sound recordings. However, it would preclude certain actions to enforce those rights in state courts.

The bill would take effect immediately upon enactment.

What the Congress does regarding pre-1972 sound recordings will affect artists who recorded songs prior to 1972, copyright holders, and libraries and archives that want to make copies. However, the sponsors of this bill focused on the aging rock and country singers and musicians.

This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Rep. Holding is a member. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), a cosponsor of the bill, is Chairman of the HJC's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the HJC, is also a cosponsor of the bill. He stated in a release that "Digital radio stations that earn millions off Motown classics but fail to pay royalties to the artists who recorded them are withholding hard-earned profits from deserving musicians. Refusing retired artists royalties from digital radio stations is particularly unfair. The RESPECT Act keeps faith with these living legends of American music -- the famous greats and the less known musicians who supported them -- and makes sure they get a fair shake. At a minimum, that means getting fair pay from the digital radio stations who are marketing stations based solely of pre-72 music and profiting off the work of the men and women who inspired a musical revolution".

Rep. Holding (at left) stated in a release that "Due to a loophole in the law, digital services argue they don't have to pay under their federal copyright license because recordings made before February 15, 1972 are covered by state law. But they aren't paying these royalties under state law either -- claiming it doesn't apply to digital services at all. Currently, great recordings from the American Songbook -- including Sinatra, Motown hits, Country Classics, Jazz from North Carolina's own John Coltrane, and our Beethoven of Banjo -- Earl Scruggs -- are unfortunately losing out. America's legacy artists deserve to be paid for their work and their property as much as their peers who recorded from the mid 70's 'til today. This was never the intent of Congress; it goes against the nature of copyright and property rights generally.".

The other original cosponsors of the bill Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).

Michael Huppe, P/CEO of the SoundExchange, stated in a release that "Based on their interpretation of state and federal copyright law, these multi-billion-dollar companies believe that they can use pre-1972 recordings for free, forever. SoundExchange estimates that this practice deprived legacy artists and record labels of more than $60 million in digital royalties last year alone."

The SoundExchange is a performance rights organization that collects royalties due under statutory licenses for non-interactive digital transmissions by satellite and internet radio on behalf of sound recording copyright owners and artists.

On August 26, 2013 SoundExchange filed a complaint [17 pages in PDF] in the U.S. District Court (DC) against Sirius alleging violation of the Copyright Act, and regulations thereunder, in connection with underpayment of royalties for its digital transmission of sound recordings in the years 2007 through 2012, by excluding pre-1972 recordings. See, story titled "SoundExchange Sues Sirius for Underpayment of Statutory Royalties" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,589, August 26, 2013.

Jodie Griffin of the Public Knowledge (PK) stated in a release that the PK "supports protecting pre-1972 sound recordings under federal copyright law, but this bill fails to give pre-1972 recordings actual copyright protection and fails to solve the uncertainty created by a patchwork of state laws. Pre-1972 sound recordings should be addressed in a comprehensive approach that considers the many current issues in music licensing."

She added that "Pre-1972 sound recordings should be given actual copyright protection that lasts for the lifetime of the author", and which is subject to "robust statutory licensing". Moreover, there should be a delayed effective date. Also, "the windfall that results from new licensing requirements should go the actual artist, so the statutory splits that often currently give half of the collected royalty payments to record labels should be adjusted to increase artists' share of the royalties."

Four years ago the Congress directed the Copyright Office (CO) to write a report on this topic. See, HR 1105 [LOC | WW], an omnibus appropriations bill, which became Public Law No. 111-8. The CO published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) on November 3, 1010 that constituted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI). See, FR, November 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 212, at Pages 67777-67781, and story titled "Library of Congress Issues NOI on Extending Copyright Act to Pre 1972 Sound Recordings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,150, November 8, 2010. The CO released its report [214 pages in PDF], titled "Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings" on December 28, 2011.

The CO recommended "that federal copyright protection should apply to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, with special provisions to address ownership issues, term of protection, and registration. This will improve the certainty and consistency of copyright law, will likely encourage more preservation and access activities, and should not result in any appreciable harm to the economic interests of right holders."

The CO also noted that "some webcasters are making royalty payments for the use of pre-1972 sound recordings as part of the statutory royalties they pay to SoundExchange in connection with the digital performance of sound recordings pursuant to sections 112 and 114".

5/29. Section 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act provide, among other things, for statutory licenses, and royalty rate setting by the Copyright Royalty Judges, for digital performances (such as webcasting) of sound recordings (such as songs).

HR 4772 would amend 17 U.S.C. § 114 by adding to subsection 114(f)(4) a new subsection (D). Section 114 pertains to the "Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings". Subsection 114(f) pertains to "Licenses for Certain Nonexempt Transmissions". Subsection 114(d) provides the exemption to infringement, and statutory license, for certain "digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service".

17 U.S.C. § 112 at subsection (e) provides an exemption to infringement for ephemeral recordings associated with the Section 114(d) statutory license.

The new subsection 114(f)(4)(D) that HR 4772 would add is as follows:

"(i) Any person publicly performing sound recordings protected under this title by means of transmissions under a statutory license under this section, or making reproductions of such sound recordings under section 112(e), shall make royalty payments for transmissions that person makes of sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972, and reproductions that person makes of those sound recordings under the circumstances described in section 112(e)(1), in the same manner as such person does for sound recordings that are protected under this title.

(ii) If a person fails to make royalty payments described in clause (i) for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, there shall be available, in addition to any remedy that may be available under the laws of any State, a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for recovery limited to the payments described in clause (i), in addition to interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Any such recovery that is obtained shall be offset against any recovery for such violation that may be available under the laws of any State.

(iii) No action may be brought under the laws of any State against a transmitting entity alleging infringement of a right equivalent to the right granted in section 106(6) based on a public performance of a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, or alleging infringement of a right equivalent to the right granted in section 106(1) based on a reproduction of such a sound recording, if---
   (I) the performance would have been subject to statutory licensing under subsection (d)(2) if the sound recording had been first fixed on or after February 15, 1972;
   (II) the reproduction would have been subject to statutory licensing under section 112(e)(1) if the sound recording had been first fixed on or after February 15, 1972;
   (III) the transmitting entity has satisfied the requirements for statutory licensing under subparagraph (B) and section 112(e)(6); and
   (IV) the applicable royalty was paid and accounted for under this subparagraph.

(iv) This subparagraph does not confer copyright protection under this title upon sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Such sound recordings are subject to the protection available under the laws of the States, and except as provided in clause (iii), are not subject to any limitation of rights or remedies, or any defense, provided under this title.

(v) This subparagraph shall have no effect with respect to any public performance that is made of a sound recording, or reproduction that is made  of a sound recording under the circumstances described in section 112(e)(1), on or after February 15, 2067."

6/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its incentive auction Report and Order [484 pages in PDF] and its Report and Order [144 pages in PDF] restricting participation in the incentive auction. A divided FCC voted 3-2 to adopt these two items on May 15, 2014. However, the FCC did not release these two items until June 2. The incentive auction R&O is FCC 14-50 in GN Docket No. 14-268. The set aside R&O is FCC 14-63 in WT 12-269 and GN Docket No. 12-268. The FCC also released a Public Notice (DA 14-677 in GN Docket No. 12-268 and ET Docket No. 13-26) regarding the repacking process, and a related document titled "Appendix: Analysis of Aggregate Interference". Initial comments are due by July 2. Reply comments are due by July 22.

5/27. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announced the creation of a NARA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 86, May 5, 2014, at Pages 25626-25627. The NARA announced that this committee will meet on June 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM at the NARA building at 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. The deadline to register to attend is June 10. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 101, May 27, 2014, at Page 30184. The head of the NARA, David Ferriero, adopted a charter for this committee on May 20. Christa Lemelin, the designated Federal Officer, told TLJ on June 3 that while the members have been appointed, the committee has not yet released a list of its members.

5/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that sets deadlines for submitting comments in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its quadrennial review of its broadcast ownership rules, and its Report and Order (FCC 07-217), sometimes referred to as the diversity order, which the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) remanded in its July 7, 2011 opinion in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. The deadline to submit initial comments is July 7, 2014. The deadline to submit reply comments is August 4, 2014. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on March 31, 2014, and released it on April 15, 2014. It is FCC 14-28 in MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, and 04-256. See, FR, Vol. 79, No. 97, May 20, 2014, at Pages 29009-29064. See also, story titled "3rd Circuit Issues Opinion Regarding FCC Regulation of Media Ownership" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,256, July 12, 2011.

5/19. The Food and Drug Administration (FCA) announced that it will host a two day workshop on 3D printing on October 8-9, 2014 at its White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is titled "Additive Manufacturing of Medical Devices: An Interactive Discussion on the Technical Considerations of 3-D Printing". The event is free and open to the public. The deadline to register is 4:00 PM on September 30. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 96, May 19, 2014, at Pages 28732-28733.

The House will not meet the week of June 2-6, except for pro forma sessions. See, House calendar.

The Senate will met at 10:00 AM.

Day one of a two day event titled "Biometrics Systems and Technologies". See, event web site. Location: Holiday Inn Rosslyn, 1900 N Fort Myer Dr., Arlington, VA.

8:00 - 9:30 AM. There will be an event titled "Big Data's Coming Role in Cybersecurity". The speakers will include Bobbie Stempfley (DHS/NPPD/CSC). See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building Rotunda, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC). The agenda includes discussion of "the updated NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, updated Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 7628), NIST Smart Grid Testbed activities, and interaction between Cyber-Physical System and Smart Grid". Free. Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28484-5. Location: NIST, Lecture Room G, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. The Bloomberg Government will host an event titled "Cybersecurity: Getting to Business". Admiral Mike Rogers (Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, Director of the National Security Agency, and Chief of Central Security) will speak at 9:05 AM. Robert Mueller (former FBI Director) will speak at 10:25 AM. Sen. Saxbe Chambliss (R-GA) will speak at 12:45 PM. John Carlin (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's National Security Division) will speak at 3:45 PM. Alejandro Mayorkas (Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security) will speak at 4:20 PM. See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building, Pavilion Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) will meet. The agenda includes "(1) high-frequency trading in the derivatives markets; (2) the Commission's surveillance program; and (3) swap execution facilities". Free. Open to the public. Listen only teleconferencing. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28491-28492. Location: CFTC, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in 01 Communique Laboratory v. Logmein, Inc., App. Ct. No. 13-1479. Panel G. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Home Gambling Network v. Piche, App. Ct. No. 14-1053. Panel G. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:00 AM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's (SAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies will meet to mark up a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill. See, notice. Location: Room 192, Dirksen Building.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host one of its series of meetings regarding privacy and facial recognition technology. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 235, December 6, 2013, at Pages 73502-73503. Location: American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM ET. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Yourbrandsucks.com: A Primer on Gripe Sites and How to Deal with Them". Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "18th Annual Foundation Golf Tournament". For more information, contact Glenn Reynolds at greynolds at ustelecom dot org. Location: Westfields Golf Club, 13940 Balmoral Greens Avenue, Clifton, VA.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "25 Years after Tiananmen: A Discussion with Chen Guangcheng". Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

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

Day two of a two day event titled "Biometrics Systems and Technologies". See, event web site. Location: Holiday Inn Rosslyn, 1900 N Fort Myer Dr., Arlington, VA.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC). The agenda includes discussion of "the updated NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, updated Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 7628), NIST Smart Grid Testbed activities, and interaction between Cyber-Physical System and Smart Grid". Free. Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28484-5. Location: NIST, Lecture Room G, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

8:30 AM - 5:40 PM. Day one of a two day event hosted by the Patient Privacy Rights titled "Fourth Annual International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy". See, notice. Location: Hart Auditorium, McDonough Hall, Georgetown Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Heritage Foundation (HF) will host an event titled "Taiwan's Economic Place in the Pacific". The speakers will be Dale Wen-chieh Jieh (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Taiwan), Kwei-Bo Huang (Association of Foreign Relations, Taiwan), Jeff Chien-Fu Lin (National Taiwan University), Vincent Wang (University of Richmond), Scott Miller (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Tami Overby (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), and Walter Lohman (HF). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Industrial Technology Research v. ITC, App. Ct. No. 13-1480. Panel I. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in JVC Kenwood v. Nero, App. Ct. No. 14-1011. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (CDCal) in a patent infringement case involving method claim exhaustion. Panel J. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host an event titled "Innovation, Internet Governance and Freedom of Expression around the World". The speaker will be Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). Webcast. See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

10:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing on four pending judicial nominees: Geoffrey Crawford (USDC/DVer), and Nancy Firestone, Lydia Griggsby, and Thomas Halkowski (all three U.S. Court of Federal Claims). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host a pair of panel discussions titled "International Implications of the National Security Agency Leaks". Webcast. See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law will hold a hearing titled "The Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014". Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) will preside. He introduced this bill, S 2171 [LOC | WW], on March 27, 2014. The witnesses will be Bea Hanson (DOJ Office on Violence Against Women), Jessica Rich (Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection), Mark Goldstein (Government Accountability Office), Brian Hill (Anoka County Sheriff’s Office, Minnesota), Lou Mastria (Digital Advertising Association), Sally Greenberg (National Consumers League), Robert Atkinson (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), and Cindy Southworth (National Network to End Domestic Violence). See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

Supreme Court conference day. See, October Term 2013 calendar.

8:30 AM - 2:15 PM. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCESRC) will hold a hearing titled "Recent Developments in China’s Relations with Taiwan and North Korea". Free. Open to the public. No webcast. See, USCESRC notice, and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 105, June 2, 2014, at Pages 31408-31409. Location: Room 608, Dirksen Building.

8:30 AM - 1:30 PM. Day two of a two day event hosted by the Patient Privacy Rights titled "Fourth Annual International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy". See, notice. Location: Hart Auditorium, McDonough Hall, Georgetown Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Rotatable Technologies v. Motorola Mobility, App. Ct. No. 14-1042. Panel M. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ericsson v. D-Link Systems, App. Ct. No. 13-1625. Panel M. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME CHANGE. 10:30 AM. 9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Preserving Public Safety and Network Reliability in the IP Transition". The witnesses will be Colette Honorable (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), Jonathan Banks (US Telecom), Jodi Griffin (Public Knowledge), Gigi Smith (APCO International), and Henning Schulzrinne (FCC). Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:30 AM. The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) will meet to mark up a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill. See, notice. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book titled "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?". The speakers will be Philip Hamburger (author), Judge Stephen Williams (USCA/DCCir), and Roger Pilon (Cato). Free. Open to the public. No CLE credits. Webcast. Lunch will be served after the program. See, notice. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

1:00 PM. The US Telecom and Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC) will host a seminar titled "Getting down to the business of IoT in Telecom". The speakers will be Mobeen Khan (AT&T) and Lynne Canavan (IIC). Free. Webcast. See, notice.

1:45 - 5:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Advisory Council will hold a partially closed meeting. The agenda includes a discussion of "Improving Security and Resilience of Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure". This meeting will be held on site and by listen only teleconferencing. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 96, May 19, 2014, at Pages 28746-28747. Location: U.S. Coast Guard HQ, Golden Raintree Drive, Anacostia.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Future of U.S. Surveillance Authorities". The speakers will be Jameel Jaffer (ACLU), Julian Sanchez (Cato Institute), Chris Inglis (former Deputy Director of the NSA), Carrie Cordero (Georgetown University law school), and Benjamin Wittes (BI). Webcast. 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.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a hearing titled "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Reforms". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room G50, Dirksen Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Committee will host an event titled "Recent Developments in the Regulation of Cooperation among Broadcasters and its Impact on TV M&A". The speakers will be __. CLE credits. No webcast. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on __. See, notice. Location: __.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in ScriptPro v. Innovation Associates, App. Ct. No. 13-1561. Panel N. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a five day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28587-28588. Location: RTCA, Inc., Suite 900, 1150 18th St., NW.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America". See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Ethical Issues Surrounding Post-Hill Hiring". The speakers will be __. Bring your own lunch. No webcast. Free. Location: __.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "The Future of U.S. Telecom Overseas: Trade Agreement Negotiations and the Digital Economy". The speakers will be Robb Tanner (OUSTR Director for Telecommunications and E-Commerce), Timothy Brightbill (Wiley Rein), Eric Holloway (Telecommunications Industry Association), Eric Loeb (AT&T), Lisa Pearlman (International Trade Counsel, Senate Finance Committee Democratic staff), Jennifer Manner (Echostar), Fiona Alexander (NTIA), Walda Roseman (Internet Society), and David Weller (Google). The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on June 4. CLE credits. No webcast. Prices vary. See, notice. Location: Squire Sanders, 1200 19th St., NW.

EXTENDED TO JULY 24. Deadline to submit reply 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 comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in response to its proposed rules changes regarding the support documents submitted for license applications under the BIS's Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the BIS's role in issuing documents for the Import Certificate and Delivery Verification system. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 68, April 9, 2014, at Pages 19552-19564.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding bidding procedures for Auction 97, the AWS-3 auction of 1,614 licenses in 65 megahertz in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The FCC released this PN on May 19, 2014. It is DA 14-669 in AU Docket No. 14-78. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 105, June 2, 2014, at Pages 31327-31335, and the FCC's March 31, 2014 Report and Order (FCC 14-31 in GN Docket No. 13-185).

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a five day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28587-28588. Location: RTCA, Inc., Suite 900, 1150 18th St., NW.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 102, May 28, 2014, at Page 30542. Location: DOC , Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services's (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: __.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and webcast panel discussion titled "Data as a Barrier to Entry in Online Competition". The speakers will be Logan Breed (Hogan Lovells), Nathan Newman (New York University), Darren Tucker (Bingham McCutchen), and John Yun (FTC). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location:__.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 78, April 23, 2014, at Page 22672. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM ET. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Patent Dispute Resolution at the ITC and PTAB: Alternatives to District Court Litigation". The speakers will be Kimberly Parker, Sreekar Gadde, Thomas Davison, and Joshua Kresh. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Intellectual Property in Government Contracts: The Rules You Need to Know". The speakers will be John McCarthy, David Black, James McEwen and Jonathan Baker. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

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.