9/2. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [16 pages in PDF] in Gator.com v. L.L.Bean, holding that personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant may be based upon its operation of a web site that engages in electronic commerce. This case adds to the growing number of cases, and confusion, regarding when internet based activity gives rise to personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has yet to take a case in this area.

Background. L.L.Bean is a corporation based in the state of Maine that sells clothing and related items to consumers by direct mail and over the internet. Its offices, and manufacturing and distribution facilities, are located in Maine. It has some stores, but none in the state of California. While it sells to customers in California by mail and internet, and mails catalogues to persons in California, it has no presence there.

Gator.com is Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in California. It develops and distributes software for use by consumers that, among other things, causes pop up ads to appear over the e-commerce web sites visited by consumers using the software.

The Appeals Court describes the Gator.com software: "The Gator program provides a ``digital wallet´´ which stores computer user passwords to various websites, user personal information, and credit card in formation. In addition, when a user visits a website on the internet, the Gator program analyzes the Uniform Resource Locator (``URL´´) associated with that web page. When it recognizes certain URLs that have been pre-selected by Gator, the program displays a pop-up window offering a coupon for a competitor. Gator users who visit L.L. Bean’s website are offered coupons for one of L.L. Bean's competitors, Eddie Bauer, via a pop-up window that at least partially obscures L.L. Bean’s website."

The Washington Post and other publications have also sued Gator.com in connection with this software, alleging, among other things, trademark claims. See, stories titled "District Court Issues Injunction Order in Washington Post v. Gator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 471, July 17, 2002; and "Court Grants Preliminary Injunction in Washington Post v. Gator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 469, July 15, 2002.

L.L.Bean wrote a letter to Gator.com, in California, demanding that it cease violating its trademark rights.

District Court. Gator filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against L.L.Bean seeking declaratory relief that its software does not violate L.L.Bean's state or federal trademark or other rights. L.L.Bean moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over it. The District Court dismissed the complaint. Gator appealed.

Appeals Court. The Appeals Court reversed. It held that L.L. Bean has substantial or continuous and systematic contacts with California sufficient to support a finding of general jurisdiction.

The Court wrote that "It is increasingly clear that modern businesses no longer require an actual physical presence in a state in order to engage in commercial activity there. With the advent of ``ecommerce,´´ businesses may set up shop, so to speak, without ever actually setting foot in the state where they intend to sell their wares. Our conceptions of jurisdiction must be flexible enough to respond to the realities of the modern marketplace." It added that "Businesses who structure their activities to take full advantage of the opportunities that virtual commerce offers can reasonably anticipate that these same activities will potentially subject them to suit in the locales that they have targeted."

The Court did however distinguish L.L.Bean from some other smaller entities that engage in e-commerce, or merely operate a web site. It wrote that L.L.Bean is "a multi-million dollar company that concedes that its agents regularly do business around the country, including flying to California to meet with vendors. Nor does this case present issues whose disposition will rely on access to L.L. Bean's facilities or records. Moreover, the burden on Gator if it were forced to proceed in Maine would be at least equal to, if not more severe, than the burden faced by L.L. Bean."

Other Cases. The Supreme Court has yet to take a case involving internet based jurisdiction. However, there have been numerous opinions by other courts in the last year. See, related TLJ coverage:
 • "Court Rules Operation of Website Does Not Create Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Defendant" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 693, July 8, 2003.
 • "Supreme Court Denies Cert in Case Involving Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Suit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 665, May 20, 2003.
 • "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Internet Jurisdiction Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 652, April 30, 2003.
 • "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Personal Jurisdiction Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 582, January 14, 2003.
 • "District Court Squeezes Sharman on Internet Based Personal Jurisdiction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 581, January 13, 2003.
 • "4th Circuit Rules in Internet Jurisdiction Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 568, December 16, 2002.
 • "High Court Rules Australia Has Jurisdiction Over Dow Jones Based on Web Publication" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 564, December 10, 2002.
 • "Internet Shoes: Two Appeals Courts Address Internet Based Personal Jurisdiction", "Fourth Circuit Holds No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Web Host", and "DC Circuit Suggests Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Online Brokerage" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 452, June 17, 2002.

The present case is Gator.com Corp. v. L.L.Bean, Inc., No. 02-15035, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James presiding, D.C. No. CV-01-01126-MEJ.

8/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [MS Word] in Electronics for Imaging v. Coyle, a case regarding personal jurisdiction in patent infringement actions. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Electronics for Imaging (EFI) is a Delaware corporation based in California. It makes hardware and software imaging solutions for network printing. Kolbet Labs is a Nevada corporation. Both Jan Coyle and Kolbet Labs engage in the research and development of computer software and hardware technology that can be used to more efficiently control digital printers and copiers. Coyle obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,337,746, titled "Interface card for coupling a computer to an external device".

EFI filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Jan Coyle and Kolbet Labs seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. In particular, EFI sought a declaration that Coyle's 746 patent is invalid, that EFI had not misappropriated trade secrets, and that EFI had not breached contracts.

Coyle and Kolbet Labs, who have initiated their own litigation in Nevada, moved to dismiss the California action for lack of personal jurisdiction. EFI asserted specific, but not general, jurisdiction. The District Court dismissed, on the basis that the defendants did not have minimum contacts with the state of California. It applied Ninth Circuit law regarding personal jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

The Appeals Court reversed. It first addressed the question of whether to apply Ninth Circuit or Federal Circuit law on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The Appeals Court held that Federal Circuit law applies to the patent claim and Ninth Circuit law applies to the state law claims.

It first wrote that "Determining whether specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper entails two inquiries: whether a forum state's long-arm statute permits service of process, and whether the assertion of jurisdiction would be inconsistent with due process."

The Court then stated that since California's long-arm statute permits service of process to the limits of the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, "the personal jurisdiction analysis in this case narrows to one inquiry: whether jurisdiction comports with due process."

The Court, reviewing the Supreme Court's holding in International Shoe and other cases, wrote that "Under the governing framework of personal jurisdiction, as developed in the Supreme Court jurisprudence, the exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendants of a forum state is not inconsistent with due process if the nonresident defendants have certain ``minimum contacts´´ with the forum ``such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.´" It added that "In general, there must be ``some act´´ by which defendants ``purposefully avail[]´´ themselves of the ``privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.´´" (Citations omitted.)

Then, applying Federal Circuit law to the patent invalidity claim, the Appeals Court wrote that "This court has adopted a three-factor test embodying the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on specific personal jurisdiction.  To determine whether jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant comports with due process, we look to whether (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state, (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's activities with the forum state, and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair."

The Court applied this three part test to the present case, and concluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. The Court found that Coyle and Kolbet Labs had purposefully directed their activities at residents of the California, because they had hired California firms to prosecute their patent claim, hired a California lawyer to contact EFI, telephoned EFI in California, and sent representatives to visit EFI's facilities in California. The Court then found that EFI's claim of invalidity arises out of or relates to Coyle and Kolbet Labs' activities. Finally, the Court found that the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair, noting for example, that Nevada is geographically adjacent to California.

The Court then applied the Ninth Circuit's law of personal jurisdiction to the state law contract and trade secrets claims, and found the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the California court appropriate.

This case is Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Jan Coyle and Kolbet Labs, No. 02-1536, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

9/2. The House is scheduled to consider on Thursday and Friday HR 2989, a bill making appropriations for the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, and certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004. This is not a technology related bill. However, a few provisions are noteworthy.

For example the bill provides, "For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, $429,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006, for the capital asset acquisition of information technology systems, including management and related contractual costs of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109", which pertains to the employment of experts and consultants.

The bill also provides, at Section 732, a prohibition of federal agency monitoring of personal information on use of the internet. It states that "None of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency -- (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregate list, derived from any means, that includes the collection of any personally identifiable information relating to an individual's access to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the agency; or (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party (including another government agency) to collect, review, or obtain any aggregate list, derived from any means, that includes the collection of any personally identifiable information relating to an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental Internet site."

9/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published two notices in the Federal Register regarding its recently released  triennial review order [576 pages in PDF].

First, the FCC published a notice in the Federal Register that recites and describes the FCC's new rules regarding the unbundling requirements of incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). See, Federal Register: September 2, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 169, at Pages 52275 - 52306. This notice further states that these rules take effect on October 2, 2003.

Legal challenges to parts of these rules have already been filed, and more challenges will come.

Second, the FCC published a notice in the Federal Register that summarizes the portion of the triennial review order that contains a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding modifications to the FCC's rules implementing 47 U.S.C. § 252(i), which requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to make available to other telecommunications carriers interconnection agreements approved under Section 252.

The deadline to submit comments in response to this NPRM is October 2, 2003. The deadline to submit reply comments is November 3, 2003. See, Federal Register, September 2, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 169, at Pages 52307 - 52312. Actually, the Federal Register notice states that the reply comment deadline is October 23. However, the FCC then issued a release [3 pages in PDF] stating that this was in error, and that a correction will soon be published in the Federal Register.

See also, TLJ story titled "Summary of FCC Triennial Review Order", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 725, August 25, 2003. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces UNE Report and Order", "FCC Order Offers Broadband Regulatory Relief", "FCC Announces Decision on Switching", "Commentary: Republicans Split On FCC UNE Order", and "Congressional Reaction To FCC UNE Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 609, February 21, 2003.

9/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register that recites and describes its proposed rule changes "to make spectrum available for Federal Government operations that will be displaced from the band 1710-1850 MHz as a result of making the 1710-1755 MHz segment available to support the introduction of new non-Federal Government advanced wireless services (AWS)".

Current plans call for reallocating the 1710-1755 MHz band, which is used by the Department of Defense, for advanced wireless services (AWS), such as third generation wireless (3G) services. 3G is intended to bring broadband internet access to portable devices. In the present 4th NPRM, the FCC proposes to make spectrum available for federal government operations that will be moved to make room for AWS and 3G services.

The FCC adopted this Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [49 pages in PDF] on June 3, 2003, but did not release the text until July 7, 2003. See, story titled "FCC Releases NPRM Regarding Allocating Spectrum to DOD to Replace Spectrum Allocated for 3G Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 694, July 9, 2003.

This Federal Register notice contains deadlines for public comments. Written comments are due November 3, 2003. Reply comments are due December 1, 2003.

See, Federal Register, September 2, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 169, at Pages 52156 - 52168. This is ET Docket No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 02-8.

8/29. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a document [14 pages in PDF] titled "Peer Review and Information Quality". It states that the OMB, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), propose "to issue new guidance to realize the benefits of meaningful peer review of the most important science disseminated by the federal government regarding regulatory topics."

This document states that for "decades, the American academic and scientific communities have withheld acknowledgement of scientific studies that have not been subject to rigorous independent peer review", and that scientific research conducted by or for federal regulatory agencies could benefit from the same process.

It continues that "Independent peer review is especially important for information that is relevant to regulatory policies. Agencies often develop or fund the science that underlies their regulations, and then oversee the peer review of those studies. Unless the peer review is conducted with genuine independence and objectivity, this can create at least the appearance of a conflict-of-interest. For example, it might be thought that scientists employed or funded by an agency could feel pressured to support what they perceive to be the agency’s regulatory position, first in developing the science, and then in peer reviewing it. Scientists with a financial interest in the subject matter of a study (e.g., ties to a regulated business) face a similar issue."

Both the OMB and the OSTP are a part of the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The document states that the deadline for public comment on this matter is October 28, 2003.

The House will return from its August recess at 2:00 PM. It will consider several non-tech related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status hearing in New York State Bar Association v. FTC. This suit, and a related action brought by the ABA, challenge the FTC rule that applies the financial privacy provisions of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act to practicing attorneys. See, TLJ story titled "Court Hears Arguments on Bar Associations' Challenges to FTC's Financial Privacy Rules", June 2, 2003. Location: Courtroom 6, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on several judicial nominations, including those of Carlos Bea (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), Marcia Crone (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas), Phillip Figa (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado), William Hayes (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California), John Houston (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California), Robert Jones (U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada), and Ronald White (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma). See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

1:00 PM. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) will hold a news conference to announce the release of a report on identity theft. Howard Beales, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, will speak. Call in information: dial 800 377-4562, and provide confirmation number 18873087. See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

POSTPONED. 1:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Digital Dividends and Other Proposals to Leverage Investment in Technology". The hearing will be webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 2989, the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004. Location: Room H-312, U.S. Capitol.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding making more spectrum available for unlicensed devices, including WiFi, in the 5 GHz band. See, stories titled "FCC Adopts NPRM to Increase Unlicensed Spectrum" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 663, May 16, 2003; "FCC Releases NPRM Regarding Increasing Amount of Unlicensed Spectrum" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 674, June 5, 2003, and "Delegates Discuss World Radiocommunications Conference" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 703, July 22, 2003. See also, notice in the Federal Register, July 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 143, at Pages 44011 - 44020. This is ET Docket No. 03-122. The FCC adopted this NPRM on May 15, 2003, and released June 4, 2003.

9:30 AM The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold an executive business meeting. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House will meet for legislative business. It may consider HR 2989, the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004. See, Republican Whip Notice.

1:30 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science and Research and Development, and Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security will hold a joint hearing titled "Implications of Power Blackouts on America’s Cyber Networks and Critical Infrastructure". The scheduled witnesses include Cofer Black (Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department Of State), Larry Mefford (Executive Assistant Director, FBI Counterterrorism), Paul Gilbert (former chair, National Council Panel on Energy Facilities, Cities, and Fixed Infrastructure), Peter Orzag (Brookings Institute), John McCarthy (Executive Director, Critical Infrastructure Protection Project, George Mason University), Karl Rauscher (President, Wireless Emergency Response Team), and Kenneth Watson (President, Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security). See, notice. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) changes to its media ownership rules, announced on June 2, 2003, take effect. See, notice in the Federal Register that recites and describes the rules changes. See, Federal Register, August 5, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 150, at Pages 46285 - 46358.

9:00 AM. The House will meet for legislative business. It may consider HR 2989, the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a seminar titled "The New World of E-Commerce Taxation". The speakers will be Michael Greve (AEI), Daniel Shaviro (NYU School of Law), and Kevin Hassett (AEI). See, notice. Location: 12th Floor, AEI, 1150 17th Street, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry [21 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Inquiry Regarding Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems". See, notice in the Federal Register, May 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 100, at Pages 28182 - 28186. See also, story titled "FCC Announces NOI Regarding Broadband Over Powerlines" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 628, April 24, 2003, and story titled "FCC Releases NOI on Broadband Over Power Lines" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 656, May 7, 2003.This is ET Docket No. 03-104. For more information, contact Anh Wride at 202 418-0577 or anh.wride@fcc.gov.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit requests to testify orally at the September 18, 2003 hearing of the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with the commitments that it made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 139, at Pages 43247 - 43248.

1:00 PM. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) will host a news conference to release its 2003 Privacy and Human Rights report. The topics to be addressed include Total Information Awareness, the Patriot Act,  biometric identification, and new technologies of surveillance. The event will be webcast. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Consumer Federation of America v. FCC, No. 02-1337. Judges Edwards, Randolph and Garland will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in McConnell v. FEC, a constitutional challenge to the McCain Feingold campaign finance act. See, June 5, 2003 Order List [4 pages in PDF] at pages 3-4.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [7 pages in PDF] regarding the draft Nationwide Agreement [28 pages in PDF] of the FCC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, regarding undertakings for communications facilities, including communications towers and antennas, under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This proceeding is titled "In the matter of Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process". It is WT Docket No. 03-128. For more information, contact Frank Stilwell at 202 418-1892 or fstilwel@fcc.gov. See, story titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Communications Facilities and the National Historic Preservation Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 677, June 10, 2003. See also, notice in the Federal Register, July 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 131, at Pages 40876 - 40887.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will meet. The agenda includes (1) discussion of  the status of the work of its workforce education subcommittee, (2) discussion of the preliminary draft findings of its information technology manufacturing competitiveness subcommittee, and (3) a continuation of its discussion of nanotechnology and its review of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at Pages 51577 - 51578. Location: Room 100 of the National Academy of Sciences Building, 500 5th Street, NW.

11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Will Internet Telephony Bring about a Revolution in Telecom Policy?". The speakers will be Scott Marcus (Senior Advisor for Internet Technology at the FCC), Brad Ramsay (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), Link Hoewing (Verizon), Marilyn Cade (AT&T), and Jeff Pulver (Pulver.com). See, notice. Lunch will follow the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

4:00 - 5:30 PM. The Brookings Institution will host a panel discussion titled "A Preview of the World Bank/IMF and World Trade Organization Meetings". See, notice. Location: Falk Auditorium, Brookings, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

10:00 AM. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will hold a hearing on proposed regulations relating to the definition of toll telephone service for purposes of the communications excise tax. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 17, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 116, at Pages 35828 - 35829. Location: Room 4718, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss the matters related to the International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which will take place on December 10-12, 2003, in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 18, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 159, at Pages 49536 - 49537. Location: Historic National Academy of Science Building, 2100 C St., NW.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit written comments to the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with the commitments that it made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 139, at Pages 43247 - 43248.

4:00 PM. Josef Drexl (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition, and Tax Law) will give a lecture titled "The Role of International Private Law in Establishing a Competition-Oriented International Copyright System". For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbrauneis@law.gwu.edu. Location: George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor, Burns Building, 716 20th Street, NW.

9/2. David Aufhauser, General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury, announced his resignation, effective September 30, 2003. See, letter [MS Word] from Aufhauser to President Bush, and statement by Treasury Secretary John Snow.