|Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in American
Axle v. Dana
1/18. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari in American Axle v. Dana, a patent case involving
vehicle driveshafts. What is significant about this Supreme Court proceeding is that
Google and eBay
sought unsuccessfully to use
this proceeding to obtain a Supreme Court ruling on procedure in patent litigation. The
Supreme Court granted their motion to file an amicus curiae brief, but did not
heed their recommendations. See,
List [10 pages in PDF], at page 6.
Google and eBay do not care about vehicle driveshaft technology,
American Axle and Manufacturing or
Dana Corporation, or the patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos.
Rather, Google and eBay argued that the U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) should not have engaged in a de novo review of factual issues underlying
the trial court's claim construction. They argued that this practice amounts to retrying
cases, and that this results in longer uncertainty in the marketplace.
The two companies wrote in their
amicus brief [17 pages in PDF] that "One of the primary functions of patents
is to provide public notice of the exclusive rights of the patentee. This Court has
reiterated that, for a patent to serve this public notice function, entities in the
marketplace must have a significant degree of certainty in the construction of patent
claims. Yet, the Federal Circuit’s de novo review of factual issues underlying a
district court’s claim construction undermines certainty by giving rise to an untenably
high reversal rate. Because the district court’s claim construction is not given
the proper weight, patent litigants can treat the Federal Circuit as a court of
first instance, thereby encouraging prolonged and wasteful litigation rather
than innovation. The Federal Circuit’s failure to give greater deference to the
district court’s underlying findings of fact is an outlier in the law, and it is
therefore necessary for this Court to review the Federal Circuit’s rule of
de novo review of all aspects of patent claim construction."
The amicus brief elaborated that "the
establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have improved
intrajurisdictional uniformity", but its practice of giving "no deference to
district court claim constructions has given rise to a new, and equally
dangerous, form of uncertainty. Because the Federal Circuit regularly
substitutes its own view of the evidence underlying claim construction for the
determination made in the district court, it reverses claim construction rulings
at a rate of over 33%, far higher than the reversal rate of any circuit court in
the country and higher than the Federal Circuit reversal rate on any other
issue." The brief added that "the problem is getting worse, not better. Recent
data show that the Markman reversal rate is increasing with time."
"The result is that in virtually every patent case -- at least
every one that turns upon claim construction—any dissatisfied litigant can treat
the Federal Circuit almost as a court of first instance. Instead of setting
forth the parameters of the case, and thereby providing a measure by which the
parties can evaluate the merits of their case, the district court’s Markman
ruling has become little more than a ``first take´´ on claim construction."
"In short," Google and eBay concluded, "with the current
standard of review, all incentives point to more patent litigation and less
resolution based on the merits of patent infringement claims and the inventions
underlying them. The promotion of ``the Progress of Science and useful Arts´´ is
subordinated to the tactics and costs of patent litigation."
Perhaps it is also notable that the original District Court action was filed
in 1998. Moreover, Dana Corporation regularly writes
in its 10-Q statements filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) that "We are involved in various legal proceedings
incidental to our business" and "the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty ..."
The amicus brief of Google and eBay was written by
Mark Lemley, a
professor at Stanford University Law
School, and Of Counsel at the
law firm of Keker & Van Nest.
See also, February 12, 2002
opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), which is also reported at 279 F.3d
1609. The Federal Circuit's August 2004 opinion is not precedential, and not in
the Federal Circuit's web site.
This case is American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dana Corporation,
Sup. Ct. No. 04-717, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 01-1008. The Court of Appeals case is an appeal from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, D.C. No. 98-74521.
|NCTA Files Brief with Supreme Court in Brand
1/18. The National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and several cable companies, filed a
[50 pages in PDF] with the Supreme Court
in NCTA v. Brand X, a case regarding the regulatory classification of cable
modem service. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), which also sought review of the Court of Appeals opinion, wants internet access via
cable to be treated as an information service, which carries less regulatory burdens,
rather than as telecommunications. The NCTA brief emphasizes Chevron deference.
On March 14, 2002, the FCC adopted a
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF]. The
Declaratory Ruling (DR) component of this item states that "we conclude that
cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an
interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no
separate offering of telecommunications service." This item is FCC 02-77 in
Docket No. 00-185 and Docket No. 02-52.
On October 6, 2003, a three judge panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued
opinion [39 pages in PDF], which is also published at 345 F.3d 1120,
vacating the FCC's declaratory ruling. See,
titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable Modem Service is
an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a Telecommunications
Service" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003; and story titled "Reaction to
9th Circuit Opinion in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 756, October 9, 2003.
On December 3, 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. See,
titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Brand X Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,030, December 3, 2004.
The NCTA brief argues that the Court of Appeals, in vacating the FCC's
declaratory ruling, failed to give Chevron deference to the FCC's ruling.
The Supreme Court wrote in Chevron that "When a court reviews an
agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with
two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly
spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear,
that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency, must give
effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court
determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue,
the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would
be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the
statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question
for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible
construction of the statute. ... We have long recognized that considerable
weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a
statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer ..." (Footnotes omitted.) See,
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
On June 4, 1999, the U.S. District Court (DOr) issued its
in AT&T v. Portland, a case to which the FCC was not a party, holding
that the City of Portland has the
authority to condition the transfer of control of TCI's cable licenses on
AT&T's opening of its internet cable
facilities to competing ISPs. AT&T appealed. On June 22, 2000, the Court of
Appeals (9thCir) issued its
reversing the District Court. It reasoned that cable modem service is a
telecommunications service, and hence, cannot be regulated by local franchising
Then, when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Brand X
case, it determined that it was bound by its holding in the Portland
case, under the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeals did not apply
Chevron deference. In addition, any other circuit would not have been bound
by the 9th Circuit's Portland opinion. And, the 9th Circuit only heard
this case because it won the multi-circuit lottery after multiple petitions for
review and appeals had been filed.
The NCTA brief argues that the FCC's declaratory ruling "is the best reading
of the statute and certainly constitutes a permissible interpretation. It must
therefore be upheld under the Chevron doctrine, and the judgment of the
court of appeals must be reversed."
It continues that "To reach that result, the Court need not
resolve the stare decisis issue that kept the court of appeals from
extending Chevron deference to the FCC’s regulatory classification --
although, as we explained in our petition for a writ of certiorari, this case
does provide an opportunity to address that issue. If the Court reaches the
stare decisis issue, it should state that the court of appeals erred.
Chevron rests on the premise that statutory silence or ambiguity reflects an
implicit delegation of legislative authority. Thus, stare decisis no more
precludes a court from deferring to a reasonable administrative interpretation
of a statute committed to an agency's administration than it precludes a court
from obeying subsequent statutory amendments."
The present brief was filed on behalf of the the NCTA, Charter Communications, Inc., Cox
Communications, Inc., Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable Inc.
|DOJ Antitrust Chief Suggest Topics for Study
1/5. Hewitt Pate,
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division, submitted a
comment to the
Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) in which he
suggested topics that the AMC might study. This was one of many comments received by the
Pate (at right) made a number
of recommendations that largely reflect proposals that he or other DOJ officials have
made in the past in speeches, papers and prepared testimony.
He suggested in this comment that the AMC might conduct empirical studies of the
benefits of antitrust enforcement. He wrote that "Some antitrust commentators contend
that there is no empirical foundation for the conviction that antitrust enforcement benefits
consumers and the economy". Robert Crandall at Brookings, who has studied
antitrust and telecommunications, is one scholar who has made this assertion.
Pate suggests that the AMC come up with some evidence to support what the
Antitrust Division does.
The Cato Institute also submitted a
comment [PDF]. It wrote that
"There is a good case to be made that ... the antitrust laws therefore should be
Pate also suggested that the AMC study antitrust immunities and exemptions
for various industries, as well as the state action doctrine, which exempts
state created impediments to competition. The DOJ disfavors exemptions that
place entities beyond its regulatory reach.
Pate also suggested that the AMC study state enforcement of federal antitrust
laws, civil fines for federal government Sherman Act cases, the availability of
treble damages in non-cartel Sherman Act cases, the ability of indirect
purchasers to recover damages, the fundamental prohibitions of the Sherman Act,
and other topics.
The AMC has also received recommendations from other persons and entities.
See especially, comment
[PDF] from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), the Chairman and
ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee.
Sun Microsystems submitted a
comment [PDF] in which it
suggested that the AMC "should undertake to study whether antitrust law and policy
should require standards-setting organizations ("SSOs") to adopt procedures and
intellectual property rights ("IPR") policies that require disclosure -- of the
intellectual property to be incorporated in a proposed standard and relevant license terms
-- early in the standard development process and prior to voting on the standard in
question (ex ante adoption). Consideration should also be given to permitting
standards development working groups to discuss these matters so that informed
decisions can be made on the desirability of incorporating IPRs in the design of
the standard." (Footnotes omitted. Parentheses in original.)
The U.S. Telecom Association submitted a
comment [PDF] suggesting that the AMC
study "the proper role of the states in antitrust enforcement". It suggests
limiting certain state authority.
The Association for Competitive Technology
submitted a comment [PDF] in which it
stated that antitrust is undermining intellectual property rights. It stated that
"competitors and some regulators have recently sought to use antitrust suits to
force IPR holders to give up control over their protected works, as in the
recent Microsoft case where several state Attorneys General proposed that
Microsoft be forced to publicly provide the source code to Internet Explorer
free of charge. Similarly, European regulators have shown increasing willingness
to subject protected works to a compulsory license regime because of alleged
competition concerns. The precedents created by these intellectual property
seizures will undercut intellectual property rules for ALL successful companies
and reduce incentives for research and innovation in the future."
Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
submitted a comment [PDF]
in which it stated that "Holders of intellectual property rights should be free to
exploit those rights within their defined scope. Ownership of a patent or copyright should
be viewed in the same manner as ownership of any other asset or group of assets, and should
not be presumed to confer monopoly power in a relevant antitrust market."
See also, AMC web
page containing hyperlinks to comments.
1/18. The Supreme Court
announced that it "will take a recess from Monday, January 24, 2005, until Tuesday,
February 22, 2005." See,
List [10 pages in PDF].
1/18. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Technology
Administration (TA) announced that April 26, 2005 is the deadline to
submit nominations for the 2006 National Medal of Technology awards. See,
TA notice. For more
information, contact Mildred Porter at 202 482-5572 or
1/18. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a
notice in the Federal Register that announces FY 2005 funding levels for its
Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant, combination loan-grant and loan
programs, and that reminds applicants that the deadline to submit applications
is February 1, 2005. See, Federal Register, January 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 11,
at Pages 2844 - 2849.
1/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
issued its opinion
[PDF] in AT&T v. FCC, a case regarding a
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order
interpreting AT&T’s tariff on resales of 800
telephone service. AT&T petitioned for review, and the Court of Appeals granted
the petition. This case is AT&T v. FCC, a petition for review
of a final order of the FCC, No. 04-1431. Judge Roberts wrote the opinion of the
Court, in which Judges Tatel and Ginsburg joined.
|The mail servers of some subscribers of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
blocked delivery of yesterday's issue. Hence, it has been published in
the Tech Law Journal web site. See,
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,058.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Wednesday, January 19
The House will not meet. It will next meet on January 20, 2005. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on January 20, 2005.
8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host a meeting to discuss the policy,
privacy, and security issues associated with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12,
titled "Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors". See,
[PDF]. The event is free and open to the public. However,
January 11 is the deadline to register. Contact Sara Caswell at
Sara.email@example.com or 301 975-4634.
Location: auditorium, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW (near the Smithsonian
and L’Enfant Plaza metro stations).
9:00 AM. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Condi Rice to be Secretary of
State. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. It
will consider the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will
notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The North American
Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See, FCC
notice [PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, December 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 232, at
Page 70259. Location: FCC, Room TWC305, 445 12th, SW.
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The
Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) will host a
workshop on NIST Special Publication 800-16, titled "Information Technology
Security Training Requirements: A Role- and Performance-Based Model". See,
[845 KB in PDF],
Part 2 [96 KB in PDF], and
Part 3 [374 KB in PDF]. Preregistration is required. See,
notice. Location: National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), North Building.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch.
The topic will be the FCC's Remand Order on unbundled network elements. The
speakers will include Tom Hughes (SBC) and Praveen Goyal (Covad
Communications). RSVP to
firstname.lastname@example.org by Friday, January 7.
Location: Hogan & Hartson, Moot Courtroom,
555 13th St., NW. The FCBA has not yet rescheduled this event.
2:00 PM. The Senate Finance Committee
will hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael Leavitt to be Secretary of
Health and Human Services. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the
International Telecommunications Union's (ITU)
Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) meeting. See, the ITU's
notice in the Federal Register, December 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 243, at Page
76027. For more information, including the location, contact Julian Minard at
2:00 PM. The Software
and Information Industry Association (SIIA) will host an event titled
"Improving the Ed Tech RFP: What Works and What Doesn't". See,
notice. The price to
participate is $40 for non-members of the SIIA. This event will be webcast and telecast
2:30 PM. The Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Samuel Bodman
to be Secretary of Energy. Location: Room 366, Dirksen Building.
4:00 - 5:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via conference call. The NSTAC addresses
issues and problems related to implementing national security and emergency
preparedness communications policy. This meeting is closed to the public. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 4, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 2, at Page 370.
6:30 PM. Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an
event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at
email@example.com or 202 354-1340,
or Ryan Wallach at firstname.lastname@example.org or
202 303-1159. Location: Porter's, 1207 19th St., NW.
|Thursday, January 20
The House will meet at 10:00 AM. No votes are expected. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 3:00 PM. It will begin with a period for
morning business, and then proceed to consideration of cabinet nominees. See,
Senate calendar. See also,
Congressional Inaugural Committee web site.
Inauguration Day. This is not a federal holiday listed in the
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
list of federal holidays. The
OPM states that "An employee who works in the District of Columbia, Montgomery
or Prince George's Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in
Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Falls Church in Virginia, and who is
regularly scheduled to perform non-overtime work on Inauguration Day, is
entitled to a holiday. There is no in-lieu-of holiday for employees who are
not regularly scheduled to work on Inauguration Day."
The Copyright Office will be closed.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
will be closed. See, FCC
calendar [PDF]. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) issued a
memorandum stating that its Washington DC area employees may take the day
off; however, it is silent on closure of DOJ offices.
|Friday, January 21
9:30 AM. The
U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in US v.
Microsoft (D.C. No. 1998-cv-01232) and New York v. Microsoft (D.C.
No. 1998-cv-01233) Judge Colleen Kotelly will preside. Location: Courtroom 11, Prettyman
Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to petitions to deny the
applications of NextWave Telecom and Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless for FCC
approval of their proposed transfer of control of broadband Personal Communications
Services (PCS) licenses from NextWave to Cellco. See, FCC
[4 pages in PDF]. This notice is DA 04-3873 in WT Docket No. 04-434.
EXTENDED TO JANUARY 28.
to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to the FCC's public notice regarding
BellSouth's petition for forbearance from certain
Title II and Computer Inquiry requirements. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 04-405.
of extension [PDF].
Deadline for licensees to submit responses to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to its second audit letter and notice of cancellation
to certain licensees in the paging and radiotelephone service and certain licensees
operating on 929-930 MHz exclusive private carrier paging channels. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 244, at
Pages 76469 - 76470.
|Monday, January 24
The Supreme Court will begin a recess. It will
return from recess on February 22, 2005.
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding service rules for advanced
wireless services (AWS) in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2175-2180 MHz and 1.7
GHz and 2.1 GHz bands. The FCC adopted this NPRM at its September 9, 2004 meeting,
and released the text on September 24, 2004. It is FCC 04-218 in WT Docket No. 04-356 and
WT Docket No. 02-353. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, November 2, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 211, at
Pages 63489-63498, and extension
notice in the Federal Register, November 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 229, at
Pages 69572 - 69573. See also, story titled "FCC Makes Additional 20 MHz of
Spectrum Available for Advanced Wireless Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 975, September 13, 2004.
|Tuesday, January 25
7:30 AM. The
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a breakfast
seminar titled "Expediting the Security Clearance Process: New Law, New
Opportunities for Federal Contractors". See, ITAA
more information, contact Shannon Zelsnack at
email@example.com. Prices range from
$50 to $95. Location: Sheraton Premiere Tysons Corner Hotel.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the
Organization of American States' (OAS)
Commission's (CITEL) Permanent Consultative Committee II meeting in Guatemala to be
held in April 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December
30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 250, at Pages 78515-78516. For more information, including the
location, contact Cecily Holiday at
firstname.lastname@example.org or Anne Jillson at
email@example.com. Location: undisclosed.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown
bag lunch. The topic will be "The Basics of IP-Television: Technology and
Regulation". The speakers will be engineers from the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Media Bureau (MB), and representatives of
SBC Communications and the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA). For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202 354-1340 or
Ryan Wallach at email@example.com or 202
303-1159. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher,
1875 K Street, NW, Second Floor.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host
a panel discussion title "Class Action Reform: How Far and How Fast?". The
speakers will be Robert Gasaway (Kirkland & Ellis), George Priest (Yale Law
School), David McIntosh (Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw), and Michael Greve (AEI). See,
Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
TIME? The Judicial Conference of the
United States (JC) will hold a public hearing on its proposed amendment to
Appellate Rule 25 regarding electronic filings. The JC has proposed amendments to
Civil Rule 5,
Appellate Rule 25, and
Bankruptcy Rule 5005. Each of these proposed amendments would permit the applicable
court, by local rules, to "permit or require papers to be filed, signed, or verified
by electronic means" (or similar language). Current rules provide that the
applicable court may "permit" filing by electronic means. See, JC
notice [PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, December 2, 2004, Vol. 69,
No. 231, at Page 70156. Location: undisclosed.
|Wednesday, January 26
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
will hold a Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction. This is Auction No. 58. This
auction had previously been scheduled for January 12, 2005. See,
notice [3 pages in PDF].
8:00 AM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast with
Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), Vice Chairman
of the House Commerce Committee. For more information, contact at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel,
1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee will
meet. This meeting has been described as both a hearing on pending judicial
nominations, and as an executive business meeting. See, Committee
Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The
Senate Banking Committee will hold an
organizational meeting. The Committee will consider its rules, subcommittee
structure, and funding. Sen. Richard
Shelby (R-AL) will preside. See,
notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar
Association will host a brown bag lunch titled "International Aspects of
Criminal Antitrust Enforcement". The speakers will be Lisa Phelan (Chief
of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division's
National Criminal Enforcement Section) and
Anthony Nanni (Fried Frank
Harris Shriver & Jacobson). See,
Prices vary from $5 to $10. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location:
Fried Frank, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar
Association will host a brown bag lunch titled "I’m an IP attorney, how can
I do pro bono work?". The speakers will be Mary Kennedy
(Finnegan Henderson) and Maureen Syracuse
(Director of the DC Bar Association's Pro Bono Program). See,
Prices vary from $5 to $10. For more information, contact Rebecca McNeill 202 408-4086
Location: Finnegan Henderson, 901 New York Ave., NW.
4:00 - 5:45 PM. The American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion title "Trade Policy: The Next
Four Years". The speakers will be
Brainard (Brookings Institution), Edward Gresser
(Progressive Policy Institute),
(Institute for International Economics),
Brink Lindsey (Cato Institute),
and Claude Barfield (AEI). See,
notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications
Bar Association (FCBA) will host continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled
"An Overview of Contract Drafting". Location:
Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire
|About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
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 one month after writing. See, subscription
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All