10/2. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property amended and approved HR 2824, the "Internet Tobacco Sales Enforcement Act", by unanimous voice votes.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Subcommittee Chairman, stated that this bill is "designed to put teeth into the Jenkins Act, a statute enacted by the Congress more than a half century ago to deal with the twin problems of cigarette smuggling and tax avoidance."

The Jenkins Act, enacted in 1949, does not create a federal tax collection regime. Rather, it established reporting requirements. It requires that any person who sells and ships cigarettes across a state line to a buyer, other than a licensed distributor, to report the sale to the buyer's state tobacco tax administrator. Some states impose vastly higher taxes on the sales of cigarettes than others. The Jenkins Act helps these states enforce their cigarette tax laws. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 375-378.

Currently, many internet based cigarette sellers are not reporting sales to state tax administrators. Rep. Smith stated that "the Internet's emergence as a means for the commercial distribution of tobacco products and the demand created by consumers who wish to avoid public health inspired tax increases, many of which were recently enacted, have conspired to reveal the Act as a toothless tiger".

Rep. Mark Green (R-WI), Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), and others introduced HR 2824 on July 23, 2003. See, story titled "Internet Cigarette Sales Bill Introduced in House" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 711, August 5, 2003.

There is also related legislation in the Senate. On June 3, 2003, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S 1177, the "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act of 2003". This bill would also amend the Jenkins Act, to among other things, expand the reporting requirements of the Act to cover internet sales of cigarettes. See, story titled "Senators Introduce Bill to Regulate Internet Cigarette Sales" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 675, June 6, 2003.

On July 31, 2003, The Senate Judiciary Committee amended and approved the PACT Act. See, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Bill to Regulate Internet Cigarette Sales" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 711, August 5, 2003.

10/1. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell wrote a letter [PDF] to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), regarding the telemarketing do not call registry.

He wrote that "recent court decisions have introduced confusion and uncertainty to the legal landscape. While the FCC has legal authority to enforce our Do-Not-Call rules, certain practical difficulties exist because of court decisions involving the FTC's rules. The FCC's Do-Not-Call rules incorporate a single federal do-not-call database, created and implemented by the FTC. As you are aware, recent court decision may prevent the FCC from obtaining the database and related information necessary for enforcement directly from the FTC."

Consequently, Powell requested "that the Direct Marketing Association voluntarily provide the FCC with materials that will promote telemarketers' compliance with the national Do-Not-Call registry, promote consumer choice and enhance the FCC's ability to enforce its rules concerning the national registry. More specifically, I request that the DMA provide, first, a copy of the nation Do-Not-Call registry database and, second, a listing of each DMA member that, to DMA's knowledge, has downloaded the national Do-Not-Call database, including, if known, the date of each download. This information will promote the FCC's ability to protect residential telephone subscribers throughout the United States from unwanted telemarketing initiated by all entities that have already downloaded the list, which I believe is our common goal."

10/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created a Do-Not-Call Enforcement Team. It will be headed by Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau's Telecommunications Consumers Division. It is tasked with enforcing the FCC's Do-Not-Call telemarketing rules, and related telemarketing rules.

David Solomon, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, stated in a release [PDF] that "This Team will ensure that we devote all the necessary resources to protect the privacy rights of American consumers. Our job has been made more difficult by recent court decisions relating to the Federal Trade Commission’s rules. But telemarketers should make no mistake about it -- the FCC is on the job and we will do everything we can to enforce the FCC's own Do-Not-Call rules and our other telemarketing rules."

Also on October 2, Dane Snowden, Chief of the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, reiterated that "To the extent legally permissible, the FCC will continue to vigorously enforce our rules on behalf of the American consumer." See, FCC release [PDF].

Snowden also stated that "Today, as of 4:00 p.m., we had received approximately 1,500 (telephonic and e-mail) inquiries from consumers who want to know how to sign up for the Do-Not-Call registry. This number is up about 300 from yesterday's total for the same period. Our response has been that pending resolution of the court challenges, the FTC has suspended registrations to the list, and the FCC is not able at this time to add people to the list."

He added that "Approximately 425 complaints were received as of 4:00 p.m. today, 175 above the number we received for the same period yesterday. As was the case yesterday, most of the complaints were submitted by consumers who previously signed up for the do-not-call registry but have received one or more calls since Oct. 1 from telemarketers. A small number of the complaints are against telecommunications carriers. However, the majority involve non-carrier entities."

10/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forefeiture [21 pages in PDF] that proposes fines totaling $357,500 against Infinity Broadcasting, as licensee of various broadcast radio stations, for broadcasting indecent material in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and section 73.3999 of the FCC's rules.

18 U.S.C. § 1464 provides that "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

This fine results from an August 15, 2002 broadcast of the "Opie & Anthony Show" which includes a "Sex for Sam" contest. Participants had sex in New York City locations, such as St. Patrick's Cathedral, a zoo, and a toy store.

Infinity has been fined before. For example, on April 4, 2003, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) to Infinity, the licensee of WKRK-FM in Detroit, Michigan, for broadcasting indecent material. (A transcript is in the NAL.)

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps once again vigorously dissented. He wrote that these NALs "provide no more than a slap on the wrist to Infinity (owned by Viacom) and Clear Channel rather than take serious action to address indecency on our airwaves. Today, the majority proposes a $27,500 fine for each incident of airing what the majority agrees appears to be indecent programming at a time when children likely composed a significant portion of the audience."

He added that "I defy anyone to argue that a $27,500 fine to each of the stations owned by a multi-billion dollar conglomerate is adequate to address this clear violation of federal law. Infinity/Viacom could pay this entire fine by tacking just one more commercial onto one of its prime-time TV shows and probably pocket a profit to boot. Some punishment!"

He concluded that "The message to licensees is clear. Even egregious repeated violations will not result in revocation of a license. Rather, they will result only in a financial penalty that doesn’t even rise to a serious cost of doing business."

10/2. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued an opinion [11 pages in PDF] in Albert v. Trans Union, a class action alleging violation of the FCRA. The Appeals Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendant Trans Union Corporation collects credit information for the purpose of distributing consumer credit reports to third-party credit grantors for use in assessing the creditworthiness of potential customers.

Cynthia Albert and other individuals filed complaints in various U.S. District Courts around the country against Trans Union alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.  This is an appeal from a multi-district litigation panel. While this class action lawsuit addressed many of the same issues previously dealt with by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The District Court ruled that injunctive relief is not available in FCRA actions brought by non-governmental plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then brought this interlocutory appeal. The Appeals Court did not reach the merits of the appeal. It ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this this interlocutory appeal.

This case is Cynthia Albert, et al. v. Trans Union Corporation, Appeals Court No. 02-3644, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 00 CV 4729, Judge Robert Gettleman presiding.

10/1. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology held a hearing titled "China's Exchange Rate Regime and its Effects on the U.S. Economy?"

Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH), the Chairman of the full Committee, wrote in his prepared statement [PDF] that "We encourage countries, both through negotiation and example, to leave the seeming security of capital controls and other market restrictions. Embracing free markets means providing freedom for capital to find its most productive home and for markets in goods and services to grow beyond national borders."

John Taylor, Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, quoted Treasury Secretary John Snow in his prepared testimony [6 pages in PDF]: "the establishment of flexible exchange rates, of a flexible exchange rate regime, would benefit both our nations as well as our regional and global trading partners."

"For nearly ten years now, the Chinese have maintained a fixed exchange rate for their currency, the yuan, relative to the dollar", said Taylor. "To maintain this fixed exchange rate, the central bank of China has had to intervene in the foreign exchange market." He also stated that "China still has significant capital controls. China’s capital controls allow for more inflows than outflows, thus bolstering foreign exchange reserves."

He also stated that an appreciation of the yuan relative to the dollar "would make U.S. exports to China less expensive and it would make U.S. imports from China more expensive."

Grant Aldonas, stated in his prepared testimony [11 pages in PDF] that "China's change from a non-market economy to one that operates fully on market principles is incomplete". He added that "the simple fact is that many of the main drivers of the Chinese economy remain in state hands."

Aldonas also focused on intellectual property rights. "We have considerable challenges in terms of WTO compliance, particularly in areas like the protection of intellectual property that represents the key U.S. competitive edge in many manufacturing industries. In fact, no country raised more attention as a source of concern than China during the roundtable discussions. Our manufacturers complained about rampant piracy of intellectual property; forced transfer of technology from firms launching joint ventures in China; a broad range of trade barriers; and capital markets that are largely insulated from free-market pressures."

10/1. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing titled "The Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement: States’ Efforts to Facilitate Sales Tax Collection from Remote Vendors". See, opening statement of Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, prepared testimony of Colorado Governor Bill Owens, prepared testimony of Maureen Riehl (National Retail Federation), prepared testimony of George Isaacson (Direct Marketing Association), and Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, and prepared testimony of Jack VanWoerkom (Staples).

10/2. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property began its mark up HR 2517, the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2003". The bill is opposed by some members of the Subcommittee. Several members stated that they have amendments to offer. The mark up was postponed because of consideration by the full House of a bill pertaining to partial birth abortions. Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated that the mark up will continue on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

10/2. The Senate Commerce Committee held yet another hearing on media ownership. See, opening statement of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Committee, prepared testimony of Mark Cooper (Consumer Federation of America), prepared testimony of Victor Miller (Bear Stearns & Co.), prepared testimony of Eli Noam (Columbia Institute for Tele-Information), and prepared testimony of Philip Napoli (Fordham University).

10/2. The Senate confirmed William Hayes to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (SDCal) by a vote of 98-0. See, Roll Call No. 375.

10/2. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Charles Pickering to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir). However, Senate Democrats are likely to filibuster the nomination on the Senate floor.

9/30. Microsoft announced that it reached a settlement agreement resolving antitrust litigation pending in the U.S. District Court (DMd) involving direct purchasers of certain Windows software. See, Microsoft release.

Yesterday's edition of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert (No. 751, October 2, 2003), included a story titled "TSA Receives Comments In CAPPS II Privacy Proceeding". This story referenced a comment submitted to the Transportation Security Administration by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The story incorrectly identified one of the authors of this comment as Larry Flint. The correct name is Lara Flint.

10/2. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued its opinion in Tilley v. TJX, reversing a District Court order certifying a defendant class in a copyright infringement case. The Appeals Court's opinion cautiously reverses the District Court's order on basis that the grounds relied upon by the District Court were inadequate. The Appeals Court left open the possibility that the District Court on remand could certify a defendant class on other grounds.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for class actions, is plaintiff/defendant neutral. However, as a practical matter almost all certified classes are plaintiff classes. Typically, the action of one or a group of defendants is asserted to have caused the same injury to a very large body of consumers, shareholders, or others. The situations in which a very large body of people or entities causes the same injury to a single party have heretofore been rare. However, this may be changing in the information economy. For example, the proliferation of computing equipment and internet based applications that facilitate copyright infringement could give rise to a number of scenarios in which copyright holders might seek certification of defendant classes.

Rule 23(a) provides that "One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

Rule 23(b) then requires that for a class to be certified, all of the requirements of Rule 23(a), and one of the prerequisites enumerated in Rule 23(b), must be satisfied.

Rule 23(b) lists the following:

"(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
  (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or
  (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. ..."

In this case, the District Court relied upon (b)(1)(B) and (b)(2).

In the present case, Gerardine Tilley is a graphic artist who created and published a wallpaper design. She registered a copyright for her design pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 408. She alleges that Dennis East International, Inc. copied her copyrighted design without authority, and then advertised and sold home decor items bearing the replica to approximately 557 retailers throughout the United States, including TJX Companies, Inc.

Tilley filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMass) against Dennis East and TJX alleging copyright infringement. She sought both damages and injunctive relief.

Tilley also moved for certification of a defendant retailer class. The District Court certified the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) for both damages and equitable relief, and in the alternative, under 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief only. The District Court designated TJX as the defendant class representative.

The District Court's reliance upon (b)(1)(B) was based upon the stare decisis effect. The term stare decisis, which does not appear in Rule 23, is legal Latin for the notion that courts should abide by or adhere to decided cases. That is, courts should, to some extent, follow the precedents set in previously decided cases. For Gerardine Tilley, the District Court considered that the anticipated effect of stare decisis on subsequent cases that she might bring against other retailer infringers was sufficient to satisfy the prerequisite set forth in (b)(1)(B).

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded.

First, the Court addressed Rule 23(b)(2). It held that (b)(2) can never serve as the basis for certifying a defendant class. It reasoned that "This language is quite clear: ``the party opposing the class´´ means the opposing party in the litigation. In ordinary circumstances, it will be the defendant -- the alleged wrongdoer -- who ``has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,´´ thereby making certification of a plaintiff class appropriate. In cases involving garden-variety defendant classes, there will be no single act or refusal to act on the part of the plaintiff (the party opposing the class) that makes injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate. Rather, it will be the defendants -- the members of the putative class -- who allegedly have acted in the same tortious or unlawful way (here, by selling infringing articles). The language of Rule 23(b)(2) leaves no room for such a circumstance to ground certification of a defendant class. For this reason, defendant classes generally lie outside the contemplation of Rule 23(b)(2)."

Second, the Court addressed Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The Court held that a stare decisis effect alone cannot serve as the basis for (b)(1)(B) certification. However, it added that a stare decisis effect, in combination with other factors, may satisfy (b)(1)(B).

The Court wrote that "The rule's ``by or against´´ language makes pellucid its universal applicability, so the difficulty here is not the appropriateness of applying the provision in actions involving defendant classes. Rather, the quandary concerns whether the mere possibility that the precedential effect of an individual suit will influence the outcome of later actions renders that suit, in the language of the rule, ``as a practical matter[,] dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications ....´´ Our negative answer to this question applies with equal force to both plaintiff and defendant class actions."

It continued that "Because the structure of Rule 23 makes very clear that subsection (b)(1)(B) was not intended to swallow the other three routes to certification spelled out in Rule 23(b), we conclude that the effect of stare decisis, standing alone, will not justify class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)."

However, the Appeals Court added that "That is not to say that the potential impact of stare decisis is wholly immaterial to class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The rule is concerned with suits that would ``substantially impair or impede´´ the ability of absent class members to protect their interests in subsequent cases. Although stare decisis does not qualify as an effect that, in and of itself, would cause a substantial impairment or impediment, it is conceivable that stare decisis, in combination with other factors, might support a finding that a substantial impairment or impediment looms."

Finally, the Court wrote> that "We are also cognizant of the idiosyncratic circumstances that would seem in some ways to make class certification an attractive device in cases such as Tilley's (in which a single copyright holder seeks to prevent continued infringement on the part of many defendants who sell identical articles). We therefore leave the district court free, on remand, to explore whether some suitable basis for class certification in fact exists."

This case is Gerardine Tilley v. TJX Companies, Inc. and Dennis East International, Inc., Appeals Court No. 03-8001, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Nancy Gertner presiding.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will continue its consideration of S 1689, the Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, FY 2004.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. See, notice in the Federal Register: August 28, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 167, at Page 51807. Location: Radisson Hotel Old Town Alexandria, 901 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA.

10:00 AM. The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will hold a public hearing to assist the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in preparing a report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. Location: Truman Room, White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW. This hearing had previously been scheduled for September 18, but was postponed because of the weather. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 189, at Page 56374.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Regulations ``R´´ U.S.? The State of the Regulatory State". The speakers will be John Graham (Office of Management and Budget), David Schoenbrod (New York Law School), and Clyde Wayne Crews (Cato). See, notice. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B-369, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Society will host a luncheon titled "I.P. in the Digital Age". For more information, contact David Ray at 202 822-8138. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

12:30 PM. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will give a luncheon speech. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a lunch. Bill Maher, Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau will address common carrier issues relevant to the wireless industry, including intermodal local number portability (LNP), intercarrier compensation and the triennial review order. The price to attend is $15.00. RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 30th. Location: Sidley & Austin, 1501 K Street, NW, Conference Room 6E.

Yom Kippur.

The Supreme Court begins its October 2003 term.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Research Business Models regarding the relationship between federal agencies and researchers. The NSTC published its original notice in the Federal Register on August 6 stating that it "is undertaking a review of policies, procedures, and plans relating to the business relationship between federal agencies and research performers with the goal of improving the performance and management of federally sponsored basic and applied scientific and engineering research." See, Federal Register, August 6, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 151, at Pages 46631 - 46632. See also, notice of extension in the Federal Register, September 16, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 179, at Pages 54226 - 54227.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Jacqueline Orloff v. FCC, No. 02-1189. Judges Sentelle, Randolph and Rogers will preside. See, brief [51 pages in PDF] of the FCC. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SECSAC) will hold a meeting to gather input regarding VeriSign's recent change to the operation of the registry for the .com and .net Top Level Domains (TLDs). See, notice. Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 1800 K Street, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Intouch Group v. Amazon.com, No. 02-1631. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent infringement case (D.C. No. C-00-1156-DLJ) involving internet audio technology. Intouch alleged that Amazon's, and others', method of interactive delivery of portions of recorded music infringe its business method patent. See, U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157, titled "Kiosk apparatus and method for point of preview and for compilation of market data", and U.S. Patent No. 5,963,916 titled "Network apparatus and method for preview of music products and compilation of market data". Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Soitec v. Silicon Genesis, No. 03-1080. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DMass) in a patent infringement case. Soitec SA alleged that Silicon Genesis's silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafer fabrication technology infringes various patents. This is D.C. No. 99 CV 10826. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:00 - 5:15 PM. The Global Justice Information-Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee will meet to discuss the Global Justice Information-Sharing Initiative. The meeting will continue on October 9. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 162, at Pages 50556 - 50557. Location: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Business Software Alliance will host an event titled "Global Tech Summit". The agenda includes panels titled "The Next Wave of Innovation", "Transforming Today's Challenges into Tomorrow’s Realities", and "The Great Digital Transformation". Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge will give the luncheon address. Location: Atlantic Studios, 650 Massachusetts Ave, NW.

8:30 - 10:00 AM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host an event titled "Future of the Internet". The speakers will include Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) and Phil Bond (Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology). See, notice. To attend, contact Rebecca Fuller at 202 289-8928 or rfuller@pff.org Location: East Room, Washington Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Global Justice Information-Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee will meet to discuss the Global Justice Information-Sharing Initiative. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 162, at Pages 50556 - 50557. Location: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Intellectual Property Section of the D.C. Bar Association will host a luncheon program titled "Intellectual Property Licensing in the High Technology Area". The speakers will be Jon Grossman (Dickstein Shapiro) and Bradley Wright (Banner & Witcoff). The prices to attend vary. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street, NW, B-1 level.

6:00 - 9:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host its 2nd Annual Oktoberfest Reception honoring the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) bureau chiefs. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding telecommunication relay services (TRS) and speech-to-speech services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. This is CG Docket No. 03-123. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 164, at Pages 50993 - 50998.

9:15 AM - 5:30 PM. Howard University School of Law (HUSL) will host a one day conference on intellectual property law. At 12:30 PM Judge Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will deliver the luncheon address. At 4:30 PM there will be a panel titled "Practicing in the Public Interest: Reshaping IP Policy in a Digital World"; the speakers will be Robert Kasunic (Copyright Office) and Michael Shapiro (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). See, agenda [PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $150 to $250. Location. HUSL, 2929 Van Ness Street, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Gemstar-TV Guide v. ITC, No. 03-1052. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.