6/20. The Supreme Court issued opinions in six cases. However, it has yet to issue its opinions in MGM v. Grokster, a case regarding copyright and peer to peer (P2P) systems, and NCTA v. Brand X, a case regarding regulation of broadband internet services by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The Supreme Court also issued an Order List [13 pages in PDF] that lists cases in which the Supreme Court granted, or denied, petitions for writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, a a patent tying antitrust case. See, story in this issue titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case".

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand, a case regarding whether a patent applicant who has withdrawn an independent patent claim and rewritten a formerly dependent claim as a new independent claim is subject to prosecution history estoppel. See, story in this issue titled "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand".

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Chicago Brand Industrial v. Mitutoyo, a patent case.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sprint Communications v. Smith, a case regarding class certification in a class action lawsuit involving claims of wrongful installation of fiber optic cable along railroad rights of way. See, story in this issue titled "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Railroad Rights of Way Case".

The Supreme Court also has yet to decide on the petition for writ of certiorari in Homan McFarling v. Monsanto Company, No. 04-31. It may decide this at its June 23 conference. Although, one might have expected the Supreme Court to have decided this petition at the same time that it decided the petition in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink.

The Court also announced that it "will take a recess from Monday, June 20, 2005, until Thursday, June 23, 2005."  See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 13.

6/20. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, a patent tying antitrust case. See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 3.

Trident, Inc., a subsidiary of Illinois Tool Works, holds U.S. Patent No. 5,343,226, which pertains to ink jet printer technology. Trident also makes ink. Moreover, its standard form licensing agreement allowing the OEMs to use its patented product requires the OEMs to purchase their ink for Trident systems exclusively from Trident.

Independent Ink also makes ink, and competes with Trident.

Independent Ink filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Trident and Illinois Tool Works. It sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Trident’s patents. It also alleged Trident was engaged in illegal tying and monopolization in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Trident on both claims. The District Court held that for patent tying to constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove market power.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [PDF] on January 25, 2005. It held that "a rebuttable presumption of market power arises from the possession of a patent over a tying product". It further wrote that "Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the Sherman Act section 1 claim and remand for further proceedings. As to Independent’s Sherman Act section 2 claim, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment."

And now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) wrote a brief in another case, Homan McFarling v. Monsanto, No. 04-31, that "The question whether market power in the tying product can be presumed based on the existence of a patent on that product is currently pending before this Court. See Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., petition for cert. pending, No. 04-1329 (filed Apr. 4, 2005). The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission "will not presume that a patent * * * necessarily confers market power upon its owner," because "there will often be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes for such product * * * to prevent the exercise of market power." U.S. Dep't of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property § 2.2, at 4 (Apr. 6, 1995)."

The OSG also wrote that one of the issues in the Monsanto case is "Whether a patentee engages in tying, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, when it allows the licensee to plant seeds embodying patented technology only for the purpose of growing crops for resale as a commodity, and not to save any new seeds (also embodying the patented technology) for replanting." The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the petition for writ of certiorari in the Monsanto case.

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) filed an amicus brief [PDF] in which it wrote that "The fact that the two principal federal antitrust enforcement agencies decline as part of their prosecutorial discretion to “presume” market power when evaluating a patent tie-in case lends strong support that it is the appropriate time to overturn the market power presumption originating under International Salt, a case that was decided in the economic climate that followed in on the heels of the Great Depression and the Second World War in the first half of the last century."

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief [PDF] arguing that "The Court should grant that review to clarify that tying arrangements involving patent and other intellectual property rights are assessed under the Rule of Reason without any presumption of market power in a relevant market arising merely from the issuance of a patent."

The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief [PDF] urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, and reverse the Court of Appeals.

This case is Illinois Tool Work, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 04-1329.

6/20. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand, a case regarding whether a patent applicant who has withdrawn an independent patent claim and rewritten a formerly dependent claim as a new independent claim is subject to prosecution history estoppel. See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 3.

The U.S. District Court (Del) entered judgment for the patent holder, Honeywell, based on a jury finding that Sundstrand infringed Honeywell's patents under the doctrine of equivalents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) held in its en banc opinion of June 2, 2004, that the amendments made during prosecution give rise to a presumptive surrender of equivalents. It thus vacated the District Court's judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remand to consider whether Honeywell can rebut that presumption under the Festo criteria.

Judge Pauline Newman wrote a lengthy dissent.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari lets stand the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

The Office of the Solicitor General argued in its brief that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari. It wrote that "This Court's decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), recognizes that, if a patent applicant has amended his application to narrow the scope of the claimed subject matter, prosecution history estoppel may prevent him from invoking the doctrine of equivalents to recapture the subject matter that he surrendered. ... The question presented in this case is whether a patent applicant who has withdrawn an independent patent claim and rewritten a formerly dependent claim as a new independent claim is subject to prosecution history estoppel."

It argued that the Court of Appeals correctly applied Festo. It wrote that the Court of Appeals "correctly ruled that the patent applicant's recasting of a formerly dependent claim in independent form, coupled with the withdrawal of the original independent claim, amounted to a "narrowing amendment" under Festo. The applicant's consequent surrender of subject matter triggered a presumption that the patent prosecution history estops the applicant from using the doctrine of equivalents to extend the scope of the patent beyond its literal terms."

It added that "The court of appeals' en banc decision is consistent with its post-Festo decisions and with the United States' position in Festo. The decision, which rests on longstanding patent principles and preserves an opportunity for the patent applicant to overcome the presumption against claiming equivalents, will not upset the reasonable expectations of patent holders or otherwise disrupt the patent system. Further review by this Court is therefore not warranted."

This case is Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, Sup. Ct. No. No. 04-293.

6/20. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sprint Communications v. Smith, a case regarding class certification in a class action lawsuit involving claims of wrongful installation of fiber optic cable across plaintiffs' lands. See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 4.

The plaintiffs in this federal action are landowners whose property is subject to railroad rights of way, along which defendant telecommunications companies installed fiber optic cables without the landowners' permission. They filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (NDIll), also seeking nationwide class certification. However, other related actions brought by similarly situated plaintiffs have been brought in state courts in Tennessee and Kansas. State courts have certified those classes. The state plaintiffs, who intervened in this federal action, oppose federal nationwide certification, as it would preclude their separate lawsuits, and hence, decrease their awards.

The District Court certified a nationwide class, for settlement only, and enjoined all competing class actions.

The majority of a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals (7thCir) vacated the District Court's nationwide class certification and injunction, and remanded. The Appeals Court reasoned that the plaintiffs in the state actions are inadequately represented by the nationwide plaintiffs, and hence, the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are not met. The majority further stated that the nationwide certification could result in unfairness to the state plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari lets stand the opinion [PDF] of the Court of Appeals.

See also, audio of oral argument before the Court of Appeals, and story titled "7th Circuit Rules on Class Certification in Railroad Rights of Way Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,001, October 21, 2004.

Judge Cudahy had written a strenuous dissent in the Court of Appeals. He argued that the state plaintiffs are adequately represented by the nationwide class. He wrote that "there are no disparate personal injuries. Plaintiffs' and all class members’ claims arise from defendant’s installation and maintenance of fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way. Any harm rising from that installation has occurred and is capable of being ascertained. All class members also raise the same legal claims. Therefore, the class has sufficient unity for settlement class certification purposes."

Judge Cudahy also considered national communications policy. He wrote that "The development involved here is the laying of a 36,000-mile network of transcontinental fiber-optic cables crossing many states to provide a national telecommunications grid. This installation of fiber-optic cables becomes part of the national communications infrastructure, having an important value for the national economy as well as for national security."

"The state-by-state treatment favored by the majority is likely to produce a nightmare of complexity, the inequitable treatment of landowners in different states and increased charges to telephone users everywhere", wrote Cudahy.

This case is Sprint Communications, et al. v. Wayne Smith, Sup. Ct. No. 0.4-1381.

6/17. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [39 pages in PDF] titled "Intellectual Property: Key Processes for Managing Patent Automation Strategy Need Strengthening".

The report finds that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "has made progress in delivering functionality through information systems that it has implemented, such as electronic filing and patent application classification and search, as well as Internet access for patent applicants and the public, respectively, to view the status of their applications and to search existing published patents."

"Nonetheless," the report continues, "collectively, these automated functions have not provided the fully integrated end-to-end patent processing capability articulated in USPTO’s automation plans. Two of the primary systems that the agency is relying on to enhance its capabilities -- its electronic filing system and a document imaging system that it acquired from the European Patent Office called Image File Wrapper -- have not yielded processing improvements that the agency had deemed essential to operate successfully in an electronic environment. Specifically, patent filers have stated that the electronic filing system is cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly, and does not meet their business and technical needs; thus, fewer than 2 percent of all patent applications are submitted to USPTO electronically."

The report concludes that the "USPTO’s ineffective planning and management of its patent automation projects, in large measure, can be attributed to enterprise-level, systemic weaknesses in the agency’s overall information technology investment management processes."

The report recommends that the USPTO "(1) reassess, and, where necessary, revise its approach for implementing and achieving effective uses of information systems supporting a fully automated patent process; (2) establish disciplined processes for planning and managing the development of patent systems based on well-established business cases; and (3) fully institute and enforce information technology investment management processes and practices to ensure that its automation initiatives support the agency’s mission and are aligned with its enterprise architecture."

This report assigns no blame on the level of funding for the USPTO, or the diversion of user fees to fund other government programs.

The report was prepared for Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

6/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [13 pages in PDF] in American Bankers Association v. Gould, a case regarding the California Financial Information Privacy Act's (CFIPA) requirements regarding the exchange of information among financial institutions and their affiliates. This Act, which was enacted in 2003, is also know as SB1.

The U.S. District Court (EDCal) held that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., does not preempt any part of the CFIPA, which is codified at Cal. Fin. Code §§ 4050-4060. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The FCRA does preempt some parts of the CFIPA.

This case is American Bankers Association, The Financial Services Roundtable, and Consumer Bankers Association v. Howard Gould, et al., Nos. 04-16334 and 04-16560, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, D.C. No. CV-04-00778-MCE, Judge Morrison England presiding. Judge William Fletcher wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Alex Kozinski and Jay Bybee joined.

6/17. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, made a statement in the House regarding the dozen hearings held by the HJC and its Subcommittee on Crime regarding the sixteen expiring provisions of Title II of the PATRIOT Act, as well as criticism from some House Democrats regarding these hearings. Many of these sixteen provisions relate to communications and information technologies

For example, on June 10, the House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), wrote in a release that "The Republicans' abuse of power reached a new low this morning when they tried to silence Democrats at a hearing on the Patriot Act by cutting the microphones. Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats." She also leveled accusations of "Republican abuses of power". She asserted that "Republican leaders dictate the party line and ram bills through committees". She decried the "Republicans' shameful behavior" and the "disgraceful conduct by Mr. Sensenbrenner".

Rep. Sensenbrenner responded on June 17 to these "false, misleading, and malicious allegations". He stated that "The record clearly proves that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the Committee has received testimony from an array of knowledgeable witnesses of diverging view points, and that Members had ample opportunity to address questions to each of them."

"By scheduling 12 hearings on reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act during this Congress, in addition to the bipartisan record established in previous Congresses, I have proven my commitment to conducting rigorous and comprehensive oversight of the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. Since commencing this latest series of oversight hearings in April of this year, the top two officials at the Justice Department – Attorney General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Comey – have testified before the Committee on separate occasions. In each of the additional nine recent hearings held on this subject, the minority was allowed to designate at least one – and sometimes two – of the customary four witnesses at Committee hearings, thus providing a consistent platform for additional and often dissenting viewpoints", said Sensenbrenner.

He asserted that "The record clearly demonstrates that this Committee has engaged in a thorough, comprehensive, and bipartisan review of the PATRIOT Act since its passage. Assertions to the contrary are not only unfounded, they are plainly false, misleading, and malicious."

This significance of this exchange may not lie in who is right and who is wrong. That Democrats and Republicans are exchanging harsh words evidences a lack of a bipartisan effort to impose limitations upon Title II of the PATRIOT, and hence, diminishes the likelihood that the House will develop and enact a bipartisan bill over Bush administration objections. See also, story titled "Commentary: Partisan Theatrics Threaten Bipartisan Efforts to Place Limits in Title II of PATRIOT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,152, June 13, 2005.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider HR 2475, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006". See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of HR 6, the energy bill.

The Supreme Court will next meet on Thursday, June 23.

8:30 AM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the American Antitrust Institute (AAI). The event on Tuesday is titled "Thinking Creatively About Antitrust Remedies". At 9:45 AM, former Judge Thomas Jackson will give a speech titled "Microsoft: The Remedy Phase". At 10:40 AM, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Jonathan Liebowitz will give a speech titled "Evolving Remedies: Building on the Muris and Pitofsky Years". At 12:30 PM, FTC Commissioner Thomas Leary will give a speech titled "The Bipartisan Legacy". See, conference brochure [huge PDF file]. The price to attend is $400. For more information, contact Sarah Frey at 202 408-7442. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

9:30 AM. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will host a news conference titled "Science Under Siege". For more information, contact Emily Whitfield at 212 549-2566. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold an oversight hearing titled "Copyright Office Views on Music Licensing Reform". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host an event titled "Digital Age Communications Act Regulatory Framework Working Group: Public Release and Discussion of a Working Group Draft Document". The speakers will be Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, Raymond Gifford (PFF), Randolph May (PFF), and James Speta (Northwestern University law school). See, PFF notice. See also, story titled "PFF Announces Digital Age Communications Act Project" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,068, February 2, 2005. For more information, contact Brooke Emmerick at 202 289-8928 or bemmerick at pff dot org. Location: Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting titled "Current Status of FCC Proceedings Involving VOIP and other IP Enabled Services". The speaker will be Thomas Navin, Chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. The FCC's proceedings are titled "In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services" (WC Docket No. 04-36), and "E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers" (WC Docket No. 05-196). For more information, contact Catherine Bohigian at catherine.bohigian@fcc.gov or Frank Lloyd at flloyd@mintz.com. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) states that this is a meeting of its Cable Practice Committee, and requests an RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org. Location: Mintz Levin, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW , 9th Floor.

2:00 PM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies will meet to mark up HR 2862, the appropriations bill for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for FY 2006. Location: Room S-128, Capitol Building.

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

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on telecom mergers. See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 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.

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of the nomination of Linda Coombs to be Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Committee will webcast [Real] the hearing. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

11:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity will hold a hearing titled "Ensuring the Security of America's Borders through the Use of Biometric Passports and Other Identity Documents". Acting Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Dezenski will testify. Location: undisclosed.

12:00 NOON - 2:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's National Chamber Foundation (NCF) will host a luncheon titled "The Effect of Municipal Broadband Networks on Competition". The speakers will include David Hirschmann (NCF), Jim Kovacs (US Chamber), Dianah Neff (City of Philadelphia), Jim Speta (Northwestern University), and Jim Baller (Baller Herbst Law Group). The price to attend ranges from free to $115. See, notice and agenda [PDF]. Location: US Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.

2:15 PM. The House International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on on Europe and Emerging Threats will hold a hearing titled "The EU Constitution and U.S.-EU Relations: The Recent Referenda in France and the Netherlands and the U.S.-EU Summit". See, notice. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.

RESCHEDULED FROM MAY 11. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar on voice over internet protocol (VOIP). See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Skadden Arps, 700 14th Street, NW.

EXTENDED TO JULY 20. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its intercarrier compensation system. This FNPRM is FCC 05-33 in CC Docket No. 01-92. The FCC adopted this FNPRM at its meeting of February 10, 2005, and released it on March 3, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 56, at Pages 15030 - 15044. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts FNPRM in Intercarrier Compensation Proceeding" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,076, February 14, 2005.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [10 pages in PDF] regarding video news releases (VNRs). This notice is FCC 05-84 in MB Docket No. 05-171.

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

TENTATIVE. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC frequently cancels meetings 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.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a business meeting. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 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.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing regarding U.S. China economic relations. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet. Most of the meeting is closed to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 109, at Page 33519. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff will speak at 10:00 AM. The open portion of the meeting, from 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON, will be held at the Park Hyatt, 24th and M Streets, NW. The DHS states that "FINAL ACCESS is at 9:45 AM.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Location: National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), 1771 N St., NW, Conference Rooms A & B.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 3 (IMT-2000 and 2.5 GHz Sharing Issues) will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 7th Floor South Conference Room (7-B516), 445 12th Street, SW.

2:00 PM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies will meet to mark up HR 2862, the appropriations bill for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for FY 2006. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.

The House will may meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a program on media ownership. Adam Thierer (PFF) will discuss his book titled Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership [Amazon]. Susan Ness (former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission) will comment. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross at pff dot org. See, notice and registration page. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a pre-auction seminar for its Low Power Television Auction, Auction No. 81. The deadline to register is June 21. See, Public Notice [PDF] numbered DA 05-1624, and dated June 9, 2005. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Wireless Luncheon". The price to attend is $15. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, Room 6-A.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201 implementation. Registration is required. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 110, at Pages 33734. Location: undisclosed.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a hearing on indirect purchaser litigation. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 27, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 109, at Pages 33447 - 33448. Location: Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 432.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in its proceeding titled "In the matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Cellular Telephones and other Wireless Devices Aboard Airborne Aircraft". The FCC adopted this NPRM on December 15, 2004. See, story titled "FCC Announces NPRM on Cellphones in Airplanes" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,039, December 16, 2004. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Order and NPRM Regarding Air Ground Service in the 800 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,040, December 17, 2004. The FCC released the text [28 pages PDF scan] of this NPRM on February 15, 2005. This NPRM is FCC 04-187 in WT Docket No. 04-435. See, order [2 pages in PDF] (DA 05-1015) dated April 5, 2005 extending deadlines.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in response to its notice in the Federal Register pertaining to deemed exports. The BIS seeks comments regarding the report [64 pages in PDF] written by the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) titled "Deemed Export Controls May Not Stop the Transfer of Sensitive Technology to Foreign Nationals in the U.S.". See, Federal Register, March 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 58, at Pages 15607 - 15609. See also, notice in the Federal Register, May 27, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 102, at Pages 30655 - 30656.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in response to its Public Notice [PDF] regarding the United Telecom Council (UTC) request to be the Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) database manager. This is DA 05-1637, dated June 9, 2005, in ET Docket No. 04-37.

The 800 MHz band reconfiguration will begin, in the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions assigned to Wave 1. See, public notice [5 pages in PDF] of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. The FCC adopted a report and order on July 8, 2004 that addressed the problem of interference to 800 MHz public safety communications systems from Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) providers operating systems on channels in close proximity. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Report and Order Regarding Interference in the 800 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 936, July 13, 2004. This public notice is DA 05-1546 in WT Docket No. 02-55.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201 implementation. Registration is required. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 110, at Pages 33734. Location: undisclosed.

9:30 AM. Day one of a two day hearing of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding its proposed rules regarding regulation of speech on the internet. See, notice and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 63 April 4, 2005, at pages 16967 - 16979. See also, list of witnesses, with links to written comments. Location: FEC, 999 E Street, NW.

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 104, at Page 31470. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-305.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet by teleconference. See, Public Notice numbered DA 05-1620, and dated June 9, 2005.

Day one of a four day conference of the Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) titled "WCA 2005". See, FCC notice and notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 113, at Pages 34477 - 34478.

6/20. President Bush announced his intent to appoint Lawrence Scott Charbo to be Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He is currently CIO at the Department of Agriculture. See, White House release.

6/20. Zachary Kurz was appointed to the press office staff of the House Science Committee (HSC). He previously worked as a full committee staff assistant. He replaces Nathaniel Sillin, who left last month to work for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Joe Pouliot remains the head of the Committee's press office. See, HSC release.

6/20. Melé Williams was appointed to the staff of the House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on Research. She previously worked as Government Relations Director for the League of American Bicyclists. See, HSC release.

6/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its divided en banc opinion [24 pages in PDF] in Hosty v. Carter, a case regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by states. This case involves a state university's use of its funding of a student newspaper to prevent publication of information critical of the university's administration. The majority held that the defendant, Patricia Carter, the administrator who censured the newspaper, is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in damages. The minority wrote that Carter "violated clearly established First Amendment law in censoring the student newspaper".

6/20. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein gave a speech [5 pages in PDF] regarding software defined radio (SDR) and cognitive radio.

6/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced in a release [2 pages in PDF] that the U.S. and Canada have "have concluded an amendment to the 1962 United States-Canada Agreement concerning coordination and use of radio frequencies above 30 megacycles per second, to add a new Arrangement that will be administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Industry Canada covering use of the Frequency Bands 764-776 MHz (TV channels 63 & 64) and 794-806 MHz (TV channels 68 & 69)."

6/20. The annual US-EU Summit is taking place in Washington DC on Monday, June 21, and Tuesday, June 21. The US and EU issued a joint statement that provides that "United States and the European Union will work together to ... spur innovation and technological development by promoting cooperation in a wide range of areas, including research and development, space, education and exchanges, information and communications technologies, and health and medical technologies ... support effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, at home and abroad, in line with the highest international standards ... explore ways to exchange certain confidential information in international competition cases". The White House press office also issued a release regarding intellectual property rights, counterfeiting and piracy.

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.