|Supreme Court Requests Brief From Solicitor
General in Patent Obviousness Case
10/3. The Supreme Court invited the
Office of the Solicitor General to file a brief
in the case KSR International v. Teleflex, a patent case involving the issue
of obviousness. The Court has not yet granted certiorari, but this request suggests
that it might.
Introduction. This is an obscure case regarding adjustable floor pedals. The
Court of Appeals issued a non-precedential opinion. However, this case has attracted the
attention of technology companies such as Cisco and
Microsoft, which have urged the Supreme Court to
take the case.
These and other amicus parties hope that this case will become the vehicle for
overturning a string of Federal Circuit opinions that they believe make it too easy to
obtain and defend questionable patents -- patents that are obvious in light of the prior
art. These amici argue that the current state of the law makes it more risky and expensive
for innovative companies like Cisco and Microsoft to bring new products to market. And this,
they argue, inhibits technological innovation.
The Supreme Court last visited the subject of obviousness in its 1966
opinion in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1. KSR and the amici
now want the Supreme Court to take this case, and use it to abandon the Federal
Circuit's motivation test.
The Supreme Court's October 3, 2005
List [84 pages in PDF], at page 12, states only this: "The Solicitor General
is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. The
Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
That is, the Federal Circuit has issued its opinion, and KSR has
petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court has not
decided whether or not to grant certiorari. The Supreme Court asks the Department of Justice's
OSG for its views on whether or not to take the case. That the Supreme Court
asks for an OSG brief indicates some interest in the case.
The plaintiffs below are Teleflex International and Technology Holding
Company. Teleflex is the assignee of
U.S. Patent No. 6,237,565 B1, titled "adjustable pedal assembly with
electronic throttle control". It pertains to those things on the floor
of a car that are used to control gas, breaking, and the clutch.
Proceedings Below. These plaintiffs filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (EDMich) against KSR
International alleging infringement of this patent. The District Court granted summary
judgment to KSR. It held that the sole claim of the patent at issue in the case is invalid
for obviousness. That opinion is reported at 298 F. Supp. 2d 581.
Teleflex appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) issued its non-precedential
opinion [15 pages in
PDF] on January 6, 2005, vacating the judgment and remanding.
35 U.S.C. § 103 addresses "Conditions for patentability;
non-obvious subject matter". Subsection (a) references
obviousness. It provides that "A patent may not be obtained though the invention is
not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."
The Federal Circuit wrote that "When obviousness is based on the teachings of
multiple prior art references, the movant must also establish some ``suggestion, teaching,
or motivation´´ that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed. ... ``The reason, suggestion, or
motivation to combine [prior art references] may be found explicitly or implicitly: 1) in
the prior art references themselves; 2) in the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
art that certain references, or disclosures in those references, are of special interest or
importance in the field; or 3) from the nature of the problem to be solved, ‘leading
inventors to look to references relating to possible solutions to that problem.´ ´´"
(Citations to earlier Federal Circuit opinions omitted. Brackets in original.)
The Federal Circuit continued that "Our case law makes clear that the best
defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness
analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or
motivation to combine prior art references."
It concluded that "we have consistently held that a person of ordinary
skill in the art must not only have had some motivation to combine the prior art
teachings, but some motivation to combine the prior art teachings in the
particular manner claimed."
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. KSR filed it
petition for writ of certiorari [90 pages in PDF] on April 6, 2005. It states that
"The Federal Circuit applies this ``teaching-suggestion-motivation test´´ even where,
as in this case, a patent claims nothing more than a combination of preexisting, off-the-shelf
components in which each component performs exactly the same function that it
had been known and was designed to perform." See also, KSR's
[17 pages in PDF].
KSR's counsel of record is
James Dabney of
the law firm of Fried Frank. In addition,
John Duffy, professor
at the George Washington University Law School (GWULS), is listed as of counsel.
Amicus Brief of Cisco and Microsoft. This case has already attracted
amicus participation. Cisco Systems and
Microsoft, along with Hallmark Cards,
V.F. Corporation, and Fortune Brands, filed an
brief [23 pages in PDF] urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
They wrote that the "Federal Circuit's current
interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) hurts innovation by providing too lenient a
standard for obtaining a patent, and by invading the province of courts to
decide ultimate questions of patent validity. The motivation test allows patents
to be issued for insignificant extensions of existing technology. The motivation
test not only sets bad patent policy, but it also contravenes firmly established
Supreme Court precedent for the appropriate test for obviousness under Section
103(a). The time is right for this Court to reestablish the primacy of its
precedent in this area. This case provides an excellent vehicle for doing so."
The counsel of record for these amici is
Sullivan of the law firm of Hughes
Hubbard & Reed.
Amicus Brief of IP Law Professors. Also, a group of twenty-four people
who teach intellectual property law, filed an
amicus curiae brief
[31 pages in PDF].
They too want the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, and reverse the Federal
Circuit. They argue that "the Federal Circuit's
incorrect interpretation of the obviousness standard, as applied in this case,
provides incentives for seeking patent rights on obvious extensions of existing
technologies. The patenting of obvious extensions of existing technologies has
high social costs and is contrary to the Constitutional purpose of the patent
"Over the past two decades, the Federal Circuit has gradually
developed an obviousness test that departs from the statutory mandate to examine
obviousness from the perspective of the ``person having ordinary skill in the
They argue that "the availability of patents on obvious
combinations overwhelms the Patent and Trademark Office with applications for
patents on obvious combinations of previously existing technologies; promotes
socially wasteful races to patent these obvious advances; and raises patent
search costs for those seeking to combine existing technologies. Moreover, in
attempting to find documentation of what is commonly known in the art, patent
examiners and later litigants must waste time and resources searching for
specific articulations of common, but largely tacit, knowledge."
And, they argue that the problem is
particularly acute for fast moving new technologies. For example, they state
that "technological advances have given rise to numerous opportunities to
computerize existing processes, many of which would likely have been obvious to
those skilled in the art once the computer technology became available."
They conclude that "This case provides the Court with an
opportunity to overturn the Federal Circuit’s much-criticized current approach
to non-obviousness, which is at odds with the statutory language, inconsistent
with this Court’s precedent, and contrary to the goals of the patent system."
The law professors' counsel of record is
who teaches at GWULS. Among the others are
Katherine Strandburg (DePaul),
Cynthia Ho (Loyola
University Chicago), Mark
Robert Merges (UC Berkeley), and
Arti Rai (Duke).
Amicus Brief of PFF. The Progress and
Freedom Foundation (PFF) also filed an
amicus curiae brief [25 pages in PDF]. It too wants the Supreme Court to
grant certiorari, and overturn the Federal Circuit's motivation test.
It states that it wants the Supreme Court "to restore vigor to the
nonobviousness standard, thereby preventing the degradation of patent quality and a
corresponding loss of credibility of the patent system itself."
See also, the Supreme Court's
for this case.
The Supreme Court proceeding is KSR International Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., et al, No. 04-1350. The Court of Appeals number is
04-1152. The District Court number is 02-74586.
|Supreme Court Vacates in US
10/3. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari, vacated, and remanded, without opinion, in US v. Maxwell,
a case regarding the authority of the Congress to enact criminal statutes under
the authority of the Commerce Clause.
Since the Supreme Court issued no opinion, and will issue no opinion, it has
passed up an opportunity to discuss what authority the Congress has under the
Commerce Clause to enact criminal statutes that pertain to conduct involving use
of computers and the internet.
The Supreme Court wrote in its October 3, 2005,
List [84 pages in PDF], at page 2, that "The motion of respondent for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further
consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. __ 2005. The Chief
Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this
This case involves the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), which
addresses pormography on computer disks or computers hard drives. The defendant
was charged and convicted in the U.S. District Court of violation of this
statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(11thCir) reversed his conviction on the grounds that the Congress lacked
authority to enact this statute.
Gonzales v. Raich involved the constitutionality of the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA). On June 6, 2005, the Court issued its
opinion [79 pages in PDF] upholding a section of the CSA as a valid exercise
of federal power. The Court concluded that the Congress has broad and sweeping
power to enact criminal statutes under the Commerce Clause. See, story titled
"Supreme Court Upholds Broad Congressional Power to Enact Criminal Statutes
Under Commerce Clause" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,149, June 7, 2005.
There is no general grant of criminal law making authority in the
Constitution, although, the Congress often acts as though there were. There is
an implied power to enact certain criminal laws as "necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution" other enumerated powers. See, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18. Some federal criminal statutes, such as the CSA and some technology
related criminal statutes, are based upon the authority of the Commerce Clause.
See, Article I, Section 8, Clause 2.
The Supreme Court has just vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and
let stand the criminal statute at issue. This means that the Supreme Court has
determined that the statute at issue is constitutional. However, the Supreme
Court has written nothing that serves as precedential guidance, and that puts
the Congress and the American public on notice as to what types of federal criminal
regulation of internet related conduct will pass constitutional muster, and why.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, and its
disposition of the present case, suggest that the Supreme Court will not be receptive
to further challenges to criminal prohibitions of internet related conduct based upon
the argument that they exceed Congressional Commerce Clause authority.
Much bad conduct involving the internet is clearly commercial and interstate.
However, some of the bad acts that are related to the use of information
technologies are committed by individuals who are not buying or selling anything
in interstate commerce. Some of these individuals are sitting at home, using
their personal computers. Yet, the Congress is increasingly regulating this
conduct. The Supreme Court has just upheld one such criminal law. It appears
likely that it will uphold others that are similarly challenged.
This case is U.S. v. James Maxwell, Sup. Ct. No. 04-1382.
|Bush Discusses Miers
10/4. President Bush held a news conference at which he discussed his nomination of
Harriet Miers to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. See,
He said that "I expect the Senate to conduct fair hearings, and to hold an up or
down vote on Harriet's nomination by Thanksgiving."
He also said that "She shares my philosophy that judges should strictly interpret
the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and not legislate from the
PATRIOT Act. Bush also discussed the USA PATRIOT Act, and extension of
those provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
He said that "We also got to continue to make sure we meet our obligations to
prevent further terrorist attack. One of the most important effective tools for
safeguarding our country is the Patriot Act. This good law allows law
enforcement officers to hunt down terrorists with many of the same tools they
already use to fight organized crime and drug dealers. The Patriot Act is
getting results; it's a positive piece of legislation. Parts of it are set to
expire. Congress needs to recognize that terrorist threats won't expire, and so
they need to send me a bill that reauthorizes the Patriot Act."
Next Fed Chairman. President Bush was also asked about the
process for selecting the next Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board (FRB). He
said that the process is "ongoing".
term of office expires on January 31, 2006.
Bush added that "There is a group of people inside the White House who are
bringing forth -- who will bring forth nominees. These are people that -- the
nominees will be people that, one, obviously, can do the job; and secondly, will
be independent. It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent
person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people not
only here in America, but the world, confidence."
Other topics discussed at the press conference included Iraq, Hurricane Katrina,
federal spending, Social Security, avian flue, elections, and politics.
|More Supreme Court News
10/3. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari in Board of Trustees, University of Illinois v. Fujitsu
Limited, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 04-1346. See,
List [84 pages in PDF], at page 14. This is a patent infringement case
involving plasma screen technology, and 11th Amendment immunity of state
universities. This order denies the petition for writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The Federal
Circuit dismissed an appeal from the
U.S. District Court (NDCal) for lack of jurisdiction.
10/3. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari in Brokaw v. Qualcomm, Sup. Ct. No. 04-1711, a case
involving a former Qualcomm employee's loss of non-vested stock options upon his
termination by Qualcomm. See,
List [84 pages in PDF], at page 20. This order denies a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir). See, unpublished
opinion [3 pages in PDF] of the Court of Appeals. This case is App. Ct. No.
No. 04-55198. This was an appeal from the
U.S. District Court (SDCal), D.C. No.
10/3. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari in James Kay v. FCC, Sup. Ct. No. 05-46. See,
List [84 pages in PDF], at page 43. On January 11, 2005, the
U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued
opinion [11 pages in PDF] in an appeal from a final order of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
denying James Kay's application for review of the decision of the FCC's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
finding untimely the "finder's preference" request Kay filed involving
specialized mobile radio systems (SMR) station WNPA325. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the FCC. The Appeals Court No. is 04-1014.
10/3. The Supreme Court issued an
List [84 pages in PDF] on October 3, 2005. This issue addresses some, but
not all, of the technology related items in this list. More coverage is forthcoming.
|People and Appointments
10/3. Rep. Ernest Istook
(R-OK) announced that he will run for Governor of the state of Oklahoma. He has
been one of the members of the House who has been most active in seeking to
address, through federal legislation, problems associated with online pormography.
He has used his position as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to
add amendments to appropriations bills requiring that internet filtering technology
be used when certain federal funding is involved. Most of the Representatives
and Senators who have led the efforts to censure internet content and internet
use have also left the Congress. Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) left the Senate in
1999, and is now Ambassador to Germany. Former Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ) retired to
run for the Senate in 2000 (and lost). Former Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
retired at the end of the 108th Congress.
10/4. Sun Microsystems and
Google announced "an agreement to promote and
distribute their software technologies". They stated that this agreement "aims
to make it easier for users to freely obtain Sun's Java Runtime Environment (JRE),
the Google Toolbar and the OpenOffice.org office productivity suite". The two
companies stated that "Sun will include the Google Toolbar as an option in its
consumer downloads of the Java Runtime Environment". See, Sun
release and Google
|11th Circuit Rules in HGI v.
10/4. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(11thCir) issued its
[30 pages in PDF] in HGI v. Wetmore, a diversity case involving
This case may be of interest, not only because of its discussion of licensing
law, but also because it is a case study of the pitfalls and risks to
software companies in pursuing those they suspect of piracy, and those who
deal outside of their authorized distribution chain. The software company's
target sued for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement, won in the
District Court, and obtained an award of damages for accrued lost profits, and
for punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed all of this, but reversed
the District Court's refusal to also award damages for lost future profits for
The software company in this case is
Microsoft. Although, it is not a party to this case. The Court of Appeals
wrote that Microsoft, through its subsidiary, Microsoft Licensing, Inc. (MSLI),
and its business partner, Wetmore Printing Company, a Texas based company,
"attempted to set an ill-conceived trap to ensnare a suspected software pirate,
HGI. The trap, however, only managed to ensnare Wetmore."
Microsoft and Wetmore worked together to build a case against HGI Associates,
Inc., and its principal, Ron Schwarz, who are based in the state of Florida. HGI
sells software products in the secondary market. Wetmore, in consultation with
Microsoft, dealt with HGI, invited Schwarz to its offices, made representations
to him, entered into contracts for the sale of software products, received
payment from HGI, and began to ship products. Then, Wetmore claimed all had been
a mistake, and refused to perform on its contracts.
The consequence was that instead of HGI and Schwarz being prosecuted, HGI
filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court (SDFl) against Wetmore alleging
breach of contract and fraud.
The District Court held that Wetmore breached its contracts, and engaged in
fraud in the inducement. It awarded HGI damages for accrued lost profits from
Wetmore's breach of the contracts and fraud, in the amount of $811,733, plus
prejudgment interest. The District Court also awarded HGI $50,000 in punitive damages.
However, the District Court refused to award damages for lost future profits.
Wetmore filed an appeal, which only increased its problems. The Court of Appeals
rejected all of its appeal points. HGI cross-appealed the denial of damages for lost
future profits. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred on this point,
and reversed and remanded for a determination of such damages.
The Court of Appeals held that the contracts formed by Wetmore and HGI are
valid and enforceable. It also rejected Wetmore's argument that the contracts
are void as against public policy.
The Court reasoned that while "violation of intellectual property rights is
of great concern to public policy", there was no violation of IPR in this case.
Wetmore argued that the software that was the subject of the contracts was unlicensed.
Au contraire, concluded the Court. There was a contract to sell only licensed software;
and Microsoft approved the transaction, and did not subsequently assert its IPR, or issue
any cease and desist letters. Thus, the Court held that Wetmore "cannot now
circumvent this valid contractual obligation to HGI. Wetmore's argument that the contract
violates public policy fails because the actual contract created did not violate
Microsoft's rights or public policy."
The Court also addressed the doctrines of copyright waiver and copyright
estoppel, the availability of punitive damages for fraudulent inducement, and
the availability of damages for future lost profits on the undelivered software.
This opinion does not address the law regarding secondary markets for software
products. The District Court and Court of Appeals applied Texas law to questions of
contract formation, interpretation, and validity, and Florida law to questions of
remedies and damages.
This Court's legal analysis relies upon citations to state statutes, and court
opinions on contract law. For a more thorough discussion of software licensing law, see,
Modern Licensing Law: 2005 Edition, by Raymond Nimmer and
This case is HGI Associates, Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Company, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-11931, an appeal from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. No.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Wednesday, October 5
The House will not meet. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will resume consideration of
the defense appropriations bill.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in Slocum Enterprises v. New Generation
Devices, No. 05-1195. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DOre)
in patent infringement case. The issue on appeal is whether the District Court has
personal jurisdiction over the out of state defendant. Location: U.S. Court of Appeals,
LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, Courtroom 402.
12:30 PM. Former Secretary of Commerce Don Evans
will give a luncheon address on financial services industry and the relation
between the flow of capital and freedom. Location: Ballroom,
National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th
2:15 PM. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee will hold a business meeting to consider numerous pending
nominations, including business meeting to consider the nominations of Robert
Mosbacher (to be President of the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation), Jan Boyer (US. Alternate Executive Director of the
Inter-American Development Bank), Boyden Gray (Representative of the
United States of America to the European Union), Josette Shiner (US
Alternate Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, and other positions). See,
notice. Location: Room
S-116, Capitol Building.
2:30 PM. The
Senate Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development will hold a hearing
on spyware. The witnesses will include Deborah Majoras, Chairman of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Sen. Gordon
Smith (R-OR) will preside. See,
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 562, Dirksen Building.
|Thursday, October 6
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for
legislative business. It will consider, pursuant to a rule, the conference report on
the "Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2006". See, Republican Whip
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The
agenda includes consideration of Timothy Flanigan to be the Deputy Attorney
General, and Susan Neilson
to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
(6thCir). The agenda also includes numerous bills related to personal data and
privacy, including S 1789, the "Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of
S 751, the "Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act", and
S 1326, the
"Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act". The agenda also
includes two bills pertaining to trademark protection,
the "Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005", and
the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005". The agenda also includes
S 443, the
"Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005". The
SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. The SJC rarely follows its
published agenda. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle
(Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. See,
Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking
Committee will hold a hearing titled "A Review of the CFIUS Process for
Implementing the Exon-Florio Amendment". The secretive
Foreign Investments in the U.S. (CFIUS) is the instrument by which the federal
government blocks foreign investment in, and acquisition of, certain technology companies.
notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Committee will host a brown
bag lunch titled "FCC Wireline Broadband Order". The speakers will be
Jack Zinman (SBC Services), Michael Schooler (National Cable & Telecommunications
Association), and others. Location: Hogan and Hartson, 555 13th Street, NW, lower
1:00 PM. The House Commerce
Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing
titled "FCC’s E-rate Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring Effective
Implementation". The hearing will be web cast by the HCC. See,
notice. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735. Location: Room
2123, Rayburn Building.
2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir), sitting en banc, will hear oral argument in Motion Systems
Corporation v. George Bush, No. 04-1428. This case involves the authority of
the Court of International Trade to review orders of the President. The sua sponte
order [PDF] designating en
banc hearing requests briefing on the following issues: "(1) Is the President an
"officer" under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) and is the President's action
under 19 U.S.C. § 2451 subject to judicial review in a suit against the President?
See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (2000); Mississippi v. Johnson,
71 U.S. 475 (1866). (2) Is there any constitutional barrier that would preclude the Court
of International Trade from issuing the requested injunctive relief against the President?
See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (2000); Dalton v. Spector, 511
U.S. 462 (1994); Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1866). (3) Should Corus
Group PLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n., 352 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003) be overruled en
banc insofar as it holds that § 1581(i) does not authorize relief against the
President? (4) Under the terms of § 1581(i) and § 2451, is the relief requested
against the United States Trade Representative available in this case?" Location: U.S.
Court of Appeals, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, Courtroom 201.
2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on pending judicial nominations. The SJC
frequently cancels of postpones 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. See, notice.
Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Finance
Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade will hold a hearing on the
U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
4:30 PM. The House Judiciary
Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
(CIIP) will hold an oversight hearing titled "Improving Federal Court Adjudication
of Patent Cases". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff
Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
7:00 PM. The
National Press Club's (NPC) Photography Committee will host a panel discussion titled
"Copyright and the Internet -- What You Can Use and How to Protect Your
Work". The speakers will be Sherrese Smith (Washington Post attorney), Lorraine
Woellert (Business Week journalist), Stephen Brown (photojournalist), and Joy Chambers
(attorney). The event is free, but reservations are required. Phone 202 662-7501. For
more information, contact Joy Chambers at 703 864-1945 or Marshall Cohen at 202 364-8332.
Location: White Room, NPC, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Day one of a two day conference titled "Identity Management: Creating
A Trusted Identity" hosted by the
Information Technology Association of America
notice. For more information, contact Jennifer Kerber at jkerber at itaa
dot org. Location: Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, VA.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding off-axis
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) method for reviewing earth
station applications in the fixed satellite service (FSS). See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 109, at Pages
33426 - 33429. This NPRM is FCC 05-62 in IB Docket No. 00-248.
|Friday, October 7
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative
business. It will consider, pursuant to a rule,
the "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005". See,
Republican Whip Notice.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a workshop on the
security of electronic voting systems. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 174, at
Pages 53635 - 53636. Location: NIST, Building 820, Room 152, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Sabre v. Department of
Transportation, No. 04-1073, a case regarding wether the DOT can expand its
regulatory authority to include computer reservation systems (CRS). See,
brief [25 pages in PDF] of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the
Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) in support of
Sabre. Judge Rogers, Brown and Williams will
preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a business meeting to consider the
nomination of Julie Myers to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. See,
notice. Location: __.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications
Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committees will
host a lunch titled "CMRS Issues". The price to attend is $15.
Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 5, 2005. See,
registration form [PDF].
Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW., 6th
Day two of a two day conference titled "Identity
Management: Creating A Trusted Identity" hosted by the
Information Technology Association of America
notice. For more information, contact Jennifer Kerber at jkerber at itaa
dot org. Location: Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, VA.
|Tuesday, October 11
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC)
will meet. The agenda includes presentations by John Chambers (Ch/CEO of
Cisco Systems) and Thomas Noonan (P/CEO of Internet
Security Systems). See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 2, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 170, at
Pages 52420 - 52421. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Day one of a two day conference hosted by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the Open Web Application Security Project
regarding the OWASP. See,
conference web site.
Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
Deadline to submit comments to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) regarding proposed changes to Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
Publication 201, titled "Standard for Personal Identity Verification of
Federal Employees and Contractors. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 173, at
Pages 53346 - 53347.
|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