4/20. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing titled "Oversight Hearing on Committee Print Regarding Patent Quality Improvement". The Subcommittee discussed, and heard testimony on, the Committee Print of HR __ [52 pages in PDF], the "Patent Act of 2005".

The Committee Print would, among other things, provide a first inventor to file rule, create a duty of candor, and create an administrative post grant opposition process. It would eliminate the best mode requirement, and make it harder to recover treble damages and obtain injunctive relief. It would also require the publication of almost all patent applications after 18 months.

The Subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses. See, prepared testimony [22 pages in PDF] of Jeffrey Hawley (Eastman Kodak, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owners Association), prepared testimony of Richard Lutton (Apple, on behalf of the Business Software Alliance), prepared testimony of  Jeffrey Kushan (Sidley Austin, on behalf of Genetech), and prepared testimony [pages in PDF] of William LaFuze (Vinson & Elkins, on behalf of the ABA).

The Committee Print includes some of the provisions of prior bills, such as HR 5299 (108th Congress), the "Patent Quality Assistance Act of 2004", which was sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). See also, story titled "Berman and Boucher Introduce Bill to Provide for Post Grants Reviews of Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 999, October 19, 2004.

Likewise, the Committee Print addresses some, but not all, of the issues raised in some recent and lengthy reports that make recommendations for changes to patent law and procedure. Among these are the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) October 28, 2003, report titled "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy" (see, Executive Summary [18 pages in PDF] and Report [2.28 MB in PDF]); the National Academies' Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) report titled "A Patent System for the 21st Century" (see also 171 page in paperback version sold by Amazon); the American Intellectual Property Law Association's (AIPLA) report [49 pages in PDF] titled "AIPLA Response to the National Academies Report entitled ``A Patent System for the 21st Century´´"; and the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law report titled "Response to the Recommendations of the National Research Council of the National Academies on ``A 21st Century Patent System´´".

The following is a brief, first glance, section by section summary of the contents of the Committee Print.

First Inventor to File. The Committee Print provides for a "first inventor to file" rule. It accomplishes this by amending 35 U.S.C. § 100, which is the definitional section for Chapter 10 of the Patent Act, which pertains to patentability of inventions. See, Committee Print, § 3(a), at pages 2-3.

It adds the following language:

"(f) The term `inventor´ means the person or persons who invented the subject matter of the invention.
(g) The terms `joint inventor´ and `coinventor´ mean one of the persons who invented the subject matter of the invention.
(h) The `effective filing date´ of a claimed invention is--
  (1) the filing date of the patent or the application for patent containing the claim; or
  (2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to a right of priority of any other application under section 119 or section 365(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States"

This changes the first to invent procedure. The recent history of debates in the House over patent reform proposals suggests that this proposal may generate controversy and opposition.

Rewrite of § 102. The Committee Print substantially rewrites 35 U.S.C. § 102, regarding conditions for patentability and prior art. See, Committee Print, § 3(b), at pages 3-5.

One reason for rewriting this section is to make this section compatible with the section of the bill which shifts to the first inventor to file system.

 The new section is as follows:

"(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART. -- A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained if--
  (1)(A) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or otherwise known more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
    (B) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or otherwise known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, other than through disclosures made by the inventor or by others who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor; or
  (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published under section 122(b), in a case in which the application or the patent names another inventor and the application was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

"(b) COMMONLY ASSIGNED INVENTION EXCEPTION. -- Subject matter developed by a person other than the inventor that would have qualified as prior art under subsection (a)(2) but not under subsection (a)(1) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if the subject matter and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person."

"(c) REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENT.
  (1) IN GENERAL. -- For the purposes of subsection (a)(1), subject matter is known when it becomes reasonably and effectively accessible, either through its use or through its disclosure by other means, or when it has been made inherently known from subject matter that has become reasonably and effectively accessible.
  (2) REASONABLY AND EFFECTIVELY ACCESSIBLE. In this section, subject matter is ‘reasonably and effectively accessible’ if the subject matter can be accessed and comprehended, without resort to undue efforts, by persons of ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains."

"(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVELY FILED. -- A patent or application for patent is effectively filed under subsection (a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application--
  (1) as of the filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
  (2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to a right of priority of any other application under section 119 or 365(a) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States under section 120, 121, or 365(c) based upon one or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application in which the claimed invention is disclosed in the manner provided by section 112."

Amendment to § 103. The Committee Print amends 35 U.S.C. § 103, regarding conditions for patentability and non-obviousness. This change pertains to accommodating the change to a first inventor to file system. See, Committee Print, § 3(c), at pages 5-6.

Repeal of § 104. The Committee Print repeals 35 U.S.C. § 104, regarding inventions made abroad. See, Committee Print, § 3(d), at page 6.

Repeal of § 157. The Committee Print repeals 35 U.S.C. § 157, regarding invention registration. See, Committee Print, § 3(d), at page 6.

Amendment of § 120. The Committee Print amends 35 U.S.C. § 120 with respect to the earlier filing date for inventor and joint inventor. See, Committee Print, § 3(f), at page 6.

Repeal of § 291. The Committee Print repeals 35 U.S.C. § 291, regarding interfering patent remedies. See, Committee Print, § 3(h), at page 7.

Revision of § 135. The Committee Print also rewrites 35 U.S.C. § 135(a), regarding institution of interferences. See, Committee Print, § 3(i), at page 7-8.

Patentable Subject Matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101 currently provides that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." The Committee Print would replace this with "The inventor of any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, has the right to apply for and to obtain a patent for the invention, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." See, Committee Print, § 4(a), at page 9.

Filing by Other Than Inventor. The Committee Print rewrites 35 U.S.C. § 118. See, Committee Print, § 4(a), at pages 9-10. The new language provides, in part, that "A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent."

Elimination of Best Mode Requirement. This is a short, but critical, change. The Committee Print revises 35 U.S.C. § 112 by removing the clause "and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention". See, Committee Print, § 4(d), at page 10.

Proponents of this change state that this will have the effect of eliminating a subjective element in patent litigation, thereby reducing litigation costs, and increasing the predictability of litigation.

Duty of Candor. The Committee Print includes a lengthy section that imposes duties of candor on persons associated with the filing and prosecution of patents, and persons adverse to patent applications. See, Committee Print, § 5, at pages 10-29.

First, the Committee Print adds a new section to the Patent Act that imposes a duty of candor. It creates a new § 136 that provides, in part, that the USPTO shall promulgate regulations that "impose a duty of candor and good faith on individuals associated with the filing and prosecution of an application for patent and on individuals assisting a patent owner in proceedings before the Office involving a patent."

It further provides, in part, that "The duty shall require each such individual to timely disclose information known to that individual to be material to any issue before the Office in connection with the application or patent, and to not materially misrepresent information."

It further provides that if the Director of USPTO finds that an individual who owes a duty of candor and breached that duty, then that shall constitute "misconduct". The consequences of such a finding include that "A patent may be held unenforceable". The new section also sets out other consequences.

It also provides that no court or other state or federal government entity, other than the USPTO, "may investigate or make a determination or an adjudication with respect to an alleged violation of the duty of candor and good faith". See, Committee Print at pages 10-26.

Second, the Committee Print adds a separate new section to the Patent Act that imposes a duty of candor on parties adverse to a patent application. It creates a new § 137, that requires the USPTO to promulgate regulations. The penalties for violation include imposition of civil monetary penalties. See, Committee Print at pages 26-28.

Third, as a consequences of the two new sections imposing duties of candor, the Committee Print removes various provisions throughout the Patent Act that reference "deceptive intent" and deceptive intention". See, Committee Print at pages 28-29.

Damages for Infringement. The Committee Print limits a patent holder's ability to obtain treble damages, and limits the size of some damage awards. This is another key part of the bill. See, Committee Print, § 6, at pages 29-31.

First, it limits the situations in which treble damages may be assessed against an infringer, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. For example, the Committee Print provides that "The absence of an opinion of counsel shall not create an inference that the infringement was willful." It also provides that "Increased damages may not be awarded based merely upon the knowledge of a patent or its contents by the defendant prior to suit."

Second, this section provides that a claimant may recover treble damages, after providing a detailed written notice. It provides that,

"Increased damages may be awarded for any infringement--
  (A) occurring after the defendant receives from the plaintiff written notice that--
    (i) contains a charge of infringement,
    (ii) identifies the specific patent, claims, and allegedly infringing products or processes infringed, and
    (iii) is sufficient to give the defendant an objectively reasonable apprehension of suit on such patent, unless the defendant had an informed good faith belief that a court would reasonably hold that the patent is invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable;
  (B) in which the defendant intentionally copied the patent subject matter with knowledge that it was patented, unless the defendant had an informed good faith belief that a court would reasonably hold the patent is invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable; or
  (C) if the patent was asserted against the defendant in a previous judicial proceeding in a Federal court, and the present infringement is not more than colorably different from the conduct asserted to be infringing in the previous proceeding."

This section may be intended to force attorneys for patent holders that might sue for infringement to provide specific and detailed written notices in advance. Several persons stated at the Subcommittee's hearing that many attorneys now send out vague form letters.

Third, this section provides that "Whenever the invention is incorporated into, or is made part of, a method or apparatus otherwise known in the art, or is an approved method or apparatus including within it elements otherwise known in the art, then any award of a reasonable royalty or other damages shall be based only upon such portion of the total value of the method or apparatus as is attributable to the invention alone and shall not include value attributable to the method, apparatus, or elements otherwise known in the art or contributed by the infringer or its licensors."

This section may most benefit software and computer industry companies found to have infringed one patent, but where hundreds or thousands of inventions are incorporated into the infringing product.

Injunctions. The Committee Print amends the Patent Act with respect to the availability of injunctive relief in patent infringement actions. It makes it harder to get an injunction. This is another short, but important, section of the bill. See, Committee Print, § 7, at pages 31-32.

It provides that "A court shall not grant an injunction under this section unless it finds that the patentee is likely to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by the payment of money damages. In making such a finding, the court shall not presume the existence of irreparable harm, but shall consider and weigh evidence that establishes or negates any equitable factor relevant to a determination of the existence of irreparable harm, including the extent to which the patentee makes use of the invention."

Continuation Applications. The Committee Print adds a new § 123 to the Patent Act titled "Limitation on enlargement of claim". This is targeted at eliminating the enlargement of claims through continuing applications. See, Committee Print, § 8, at pages 32-33.

Publication of Patent Applications After 18 Months. The Committee Print includes a lengthy section pertaining to post grant procedures. See, Committee Print, § 9, at pages 33-49. First, § 9(a) would have the effect of requiring that almost all patent applications be published within 18. See, § 9(a), at pages 33-34.

Post Grant Opposition Procedure. One of the most important, and longest, provisions of the Committee Print would add a new Chapter 32 to the Patent Act, titled "Post-Grant Opposition Procedures". See, Committee Print, § 9(f), at pages 35-49.

This language is not new. Much of it is a verbatim copy of the parallel provisions of HR 5299 (108th Congress).

This bill provides that "A person may request that the grant or reissue of a patent be reconsidered by the Office by filing an opposition seeking to invalidate one or more claims in the patent".

This would be a public proceeding, with the contents of the file open to public inspection. However, the bill also provides that "if requested by the person making the request under section 321, the identity of a real party in interest shall be kept separate from the file of the opposition and made available only to Government agencies upon written request, or to any person upon a showing of good cause."

This procedure would not be available "if the opposer relies upon factual evidence or expert opinions in the form of affidavits or declarations during the opposition proceeding or if the opposer exercises the right to appeal under section 141".

An opposition request must be made within nine months of the grant (or issuance of a reissue patent), unless the patent holder otherwise consents in writing.

The bill further provides that the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "may dismiss an opposition request that the Director determines lacks substantial merit." However, such a "dismissal of an opposition request shall not be admissible in any civil action related to the patent against which a dismissed request was filed."

The bill provides that "The Director shall assign the opposition proceeding to a panel of three administrative patent judges ... The panel shall decide the questions of patentability raised in each opposition request for which an opposition has been instituted. The decision shall be based upon the prosecution record that was the basis for the grant of the patent and the additional submissions by the parties to the opposition proceeding authorized under this chapter."

The bill provides that the patent owner may file responses to opposition requests, and may request amendment of any claims that are the subject of an opposition request. It further provides for limited discovery, hearings, briefs, and written decisions.

It also addresses the burden of proof. "The opposer in an opposition proceeding under this chapter shall have the burden to prove the invalidity of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The determination of invalidity shall be based upon the broadest reasonable construction of the claim."

Then, "the determination with respect to an issue of invalidity raised by an opposer shall bar the opposer from raising, in any subsequent proceeding involving that opposer under this title, any issue of fact or law actually decided and necessary to the determination of that issue."

However, the bill provides one exception. "If an opposer in an opposition proceeding demonstrates ... that there is additional factual evidence that is material to an issue of fact actually decided in the opposition proceeding, and necessary to the final determination in the opposition proceeding, that could not reasonably have been discovered or presented in the opposition proceeding by that opposer, the opposer may raise, in that subsequent proceeding, that issue of fact and any determined issue of law for which the issue of fact was necessary."

There is wide support for creating a post grant opposition procedure. However, supporters differ with respect to the procedural details.

Components and Combinations. The Committee Print amends 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) by adding at the end the following language: "An item supplied in or from the United States is not a `component´ under this section unless the item is a tangible item that is itself combined physically with other components to create the combination that is alleged to infringe." See, Committee Print, § 10, at page 49.

Transitional Provisions. Section 11 of the Committee Print, at pages 49-51, contains transitional provisions.

Harmonization. Section 11 of the Committee Print, at pages 51-52, pertains to harmonization with Europe and Japan.

4/20. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (CIIP) held a hearing on the Committee Print of HR __ [52 pages in PDF], the "Patent Act of 2005". While the Committee Print is 52 pages, and includes numerous proposals for changes to patent law and procedure, it also does not address many other proposals for change, including items that have been in recent bills. The following is an overview of some of the items that are not in the Committee Print.

Research Exemption to Infringement. The Committee Print does not address a research exemption to patent infringement.

The Patent Act, at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) contains a narrowly worded exemption from liability for patent infringement for certain research related to certain drugs. The scope of this exemption is the subject of Merck KGaA v. Integra LifeSciences I. On January 7, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. See, Order List [2 pages in PDF], at page 1. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Takes Case Involving Research Exemption to Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1.053, January 11, 2005.

The National Academies' Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) issued a report titled "A Patent System for the 21st Century". It contains numerous recommendations, including one to expand the range of protection from liability for infringement for research activities.

USPTO Funding and Fee Diversion. There have been many recommendations regarding providing the USPTO adequate funding, especially for hiring and training more examiners, and reducing workloads, to enable it to issue better patents and reduce patent pendency. There are also proposals to eliminate the Congress' practice of diverting USPTO user fees to subsidize other government programs, thereby depriving the USPTO of funding. This would also end a de facto tax on innovators.

The membership of the House Judiciary Committee has worked diligently, though largely without success, to pass legislation to address these problems. However, the Committee Print does not address these funding issues.

11th Amendment Immunity of State University Systems. Members of Congress have attempted, unsuccessfully, in prior Congresses to pass legislation that would undo the consequences the Supreme Court's opinion in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank. In addition, private universities have advocated, with little sympathy outside of academic circles, that they should have the same sort of immunity as state universities. The Committee Print does not address 11th Amendment immunity.

That is, pursuant the the Supreme Court's strained interpretation of sovereign immunity and 11th Amendment immunity, states have sovereign immunity in state and federal courts against money damages suits for intellectual property infringements. Of course, states remain free to sue for damages for infringement of their patents and copyrights. See, the opinions of the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, holding that the Congress lacks authority under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate the States' 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts, Florida Prepaid, invalidating the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act, and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, invalidating the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act.

The Congress cannot by legislation overturn a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution. Hence, one of the approaches of proposed legislation is to give states an incentive to waive 11th Amendment immunity, for example, by eliminating any damages remedy for infringement of state owned intellectual property unless the state has waived its immunity in federal suits for infringement of privately owned intellectual property.

See for example, stories titled "Legislators Introduce Bills to Address Infringement by States" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 302, November 6, 2001; "Sen. Leahy Reintroduces Bill to Close 11th Amendment Loophole to IPR" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 394, March 22, 2002; "Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Federalism and Intellectual Property" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 522, October 3, 2002; and "Legislators Re-Introduce Bills to Address State IPR Sovereign Immunity" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 680, June 13, 2003.

Federal Circuit. There have been various proposals regarding the Federal Circuit's practices, procedures, use of scholarly works and amicus briefs, and appointments. See for example, recommendation number 1 of the NAS report and recommendation number 10 of the FTC report. However, the Committee Print does not address any of these topics.

The House will meet at 12:00 NOON in pro forma session only. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to HR 3, the highway bill.

1:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Intellectual Property Committee has scheduled hearing titled "Perspectives on Patents". The SJC frequently cancels hearings without notice. The SJC has twice postponed this hearing. The scheduled witnesses are Jon Dudas (Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office), Richard Levin (President of Yale University and National Research Council), Mark Myers (University of Pennsylvania and National Research Council), William Parker (Diffraction, Ltd.), David Simon (Chief Patent Counsel of Intel), Robert Armitage (Eli Lilly and Company), Joel Poppen (Micron Technologies), and Michael Kirk (American Intellectual Property Law Association). Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

The voluntary negotiation period for the purpose of determining the royalty fees for the retransmission of digital over the air television broadcast signals by satellite carriers under the statutory license ends. See, Copyright Office's (CO) notice in the Federal Register, March 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 57, at Pages 15368 - 15369.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding implementation of Section 207 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, extends Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act until 2010 and amends that section to impose reciprocal good faith retransmission consent bargaining obligations on multichannel video programming distributors. This proceeding is MB Docket No. 05-89. See, FCC Public Notice DA 05-772, and notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 56, at Pages 15048 - 15051. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts and Releases NPRM Implementing § 207 of SHVERA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,090, March 8, 2005.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider several items under suspension of the rules, including HR 28, the "High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005". See, Republican Whip Notice.

TIME? The House Appropriation's Committee's Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the Federal Communications Commission. See, notice. This hearing was previously scheduled for April 14. Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building. (This is a small hearing room with very few public seats.)

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold another in its series of oversight hearings on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. This hearing will focus on several provisions related to electronic surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), including § 204, titled "Clarification of Intelligence Exceptions from Limitations on Interception & Disclosure of Wire, Oral & Electronic Communications", § 207, titled "Duration of FISA Surveillance of Non-United States persons who are Agents of a Foreign Power", § 214, titled "Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority Under FISA", and § 225, titled "Immunity for Compliance with FISA Wiretap. The notice of the hearing also references "Lone Wolf". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141 Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on money services businesses under bank secrecy and USA PATRIOT Act regulation. See, notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON -1:30 PM. The Electronics Industry Alliance (EIA) will host a luncheon. The speaker will be Chang-Gyu Hwang, P/CEO of Samsung Electronics Semiconductor Business. See, notice. For more information, contact Gail Tannenbaum at gtannenbaum at eia dot org. Location: Room 325, Russell Building, Capitol Hill.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Patent Law Update: What The Federal Circuit Would Like To See In Litigated Patents". The scheduled speaker is Paul Hickman (Perkins Coie). See, notice. Prices vary from $10 to $30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "The Urge to Merge: A Procedural Primer on Supporting, Opposing, or Monitoring Telecommunications Mergers Considered Before the FCC, Congress, and Other Government Agencies". For more information, contact Natalie Roisman at  natalie.roisman@fcc.gov or 202 418-1655 or Phil Marchesiello at pmarchesiello at akingump dot com or 202 887-4348. No RSVP. Location: Akin Gump, 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW, 10th Floor.

2:30 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment will hold a hearing on the committee print of a bill titled "The Homeland Security Information Sharing and Enhancement Act of 2005". Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will begin the auction of 4,226 Multiple Address Systems (MAS) licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. This is Auction No. 59. See, Public Notice (DA 04-3198) dated November 15, 2004. See also, Public Notice (DA 04-3985) dated December 21, 2004 regarding notice and filing requirements, minimum opening bids, upfront payments and other auction procedures.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HRes 210, a resolution supporting the goals of World Intellectual Property Day. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) has scheduled a hearing on the nomination of Paul Clement to be Solicitor General. The SJC frequently cancels hearings without notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

9:30 AM. The Senate Intelligence Committee will hold another hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee will meet to mark up HR __, the "Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of FY 2006". Location: Room 2118, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Who, What, Where, and When: An E-Commerce Taxation Update". The scheduled speaker is Stephen Kranz (Council On State Taxation). See, notice. Prices vary from $15 to $27. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Online Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Cable Broadband: Brand X Round Two". The speakers will be John Butler (Sher & Blackwell, counsel for Earthlink) and a representative of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of General Counsel. RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW, 6th Floor.

1:30 PM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Communications: A View from Government Officials". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Press contact: Kevin Schweers (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Sean Bonyun (Upton) at 202 225-3761. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) will hold a news conference. For more information, contact Pam Ford at 202 775-3629. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

Deadline to submit nominations to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Technology Administration (TA) for the 2006 National Medal of Technology awards. See, TA notice. For more information, contact Mildred Porter at 202 482-5572 or nmt@technology.gov.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HRes 210, a resolution supporting the goals of World Intellectual Property Day. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold another in its series of oversight hearings on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. This hearing will focus on several provisions related to electronic surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), including § 206, title "Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978", and § 215, titled "Access to Records and Other Items Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141 Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See, agenda [PDF]. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) has scheduled an executive business meeting. The SJC frequently cancels meetings without notice. The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. See, notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a public hearing on S __, a bill pertaining to the use of video news releases (VNRs) by government agencies. See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) (202) 224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546 or Andy_Davis at commerce dot senate dot gov Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

11:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Dominican Republic Central America Free Trade Agreement". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Microsoft will host a panel discussion. The speakers will be Bill Gates (Microsoft), Rick Rashid (SVP Microsoft Research), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), and Shirley Tilghman (President of Princeton University). See, notice. Location: Montpelier Room, 6th floor, Madison Building, Library of Congress.

12:00 NOON. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold its second hearing on the Committee Print of HR __ [52 pages in PDF], the "Patent Act of 2005". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Open Source & Public Domain Software: The Future of Health Care InfoTech Is Now!". The scheduled speakers are Cynthia Wark (USPHS), Rita Shapiro (USPHS), Suniti Ponkshe (Ponkshe Consulting Group), and Alan Goldberg (Goulston & Storrs). See, notice. Prices vary from $25 to $35. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

2:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold another in its series of oversight hearings on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. This hearing will focus on § 218, titled "Foreign Intelligence Information". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141 Rayburn Building.

3:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security have scheduled a joint hearing titled "Strengthening Border Security Between The Ports of Entry: The Use of Technology to Protect the Borders". The Senate Judiciary Committee frequently cancels hearings without notice. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will preside. Location: Room 138, Dirksen Building.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [460 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act". See also, FCC release [PDF]. This NPRM is FCC 05-24 in MB Docket No. 05-49. The FCC adopted this NPRM on February 4, 2005, and released it on February 7, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases SHVERA NPRM Regarding Significantly Viewed Signals" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,073, February 9, 2005.

Deadline to submit nomination to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for membership on its Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC). See, IRS release and notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 38, at Page 9701-9702.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, May 21 through Friday, May 6. See, Senate calendar.

Day one of a three day event hosted by Internet2 and titled "Spring 2005 Internet2 Member Meeting". See, notice. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.