|House Approves Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act
3/7. The House approved
HR 32, the
"Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act", by voice vote. This bill
amends the Criminal Code with respect to trafficking in counterfeit marks,
including wrappers, boxes and stickers.
This bill addresses a loophole that was exposed by the U.S. Court of Appeal's
(10thCir) 2000 opinion in United
States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247. It also increases the enforcement authority
of the Department of Justice.
The House approved an earlier version of the bill on May 24, 2005, by voice
vote. See, story titled "House Approves Bill Regarding Trafficking in
Counterfeit Marks" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,141, May 24, 2005.
The Senate amended and approved the bill on February 15, 2006. See, story
titled "Senate Approves Bill to Criminalize Trafficking in Counterfeit Marks" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,315, February 22, 2006. (This story addresses the
impact of the bill on internet companies.)
The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
(R-WI), the Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee (HJC), stated in the House that "This legislation, which
is substantially similar to legislation that passed the House by voice vote in
May of 2005, contains important provisions to facilitate efforts by the
Department of Justice to prosecute those who exploit the good names of companies
by attaching counterfeit marks to substandard products. As amended by the other
body, H.R. 32 includes changes to the definition of ``traffic´´ contained in
Federal counterfeiting statutes to permit the prosecution of persons who import
or export counterfeit products or possess counterfeit products with the intent
to transport, transfer, or distribute such products." See, Congressional
Record, March 7, 2006, at Page H594.
|FCC Releases NPRM on M-LMS
3/7. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) announced and released the
[24 pages in PDF] of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding
reexamining its rules governing the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz bands.
This spectrum is currently shared by Part
15 devices and specified uses by the multilateration Location and Monitoring
Service (M-LMS) defined in Part 90 of the FCC's rules.
The NPRM notes that this spectrum is used also by
network devices that provide high speed data and internet services via
wireless internet service providers (WISPs). However, a footnote to the NPRM
adds that "These do not represent a large number of equipment authorizations
compared to other available unlicensed bands in higher frequency ranges."
The NPRM states that M-LMS systems "track
and locate objects over a wide geographic area (e.g., tracking a bus fleet)
by measuring the difference in time of arrival, or difference in phase, of
signals transmitted from a unit to a number of fixed points, or from a number of
fixed points to the unit that is to be located."
The NPRM states that "we seek to
determine whether our current M-LMS rules are limiting licensees from providing
services that are desired in the market and that could be profitably deployed
without causing harmful interference to other users. We inquire as to whether
the Commission could promote the development of such services by establishing
new rules that would replace certain restrictions on M-LMS operations and grant
M-LMS licensees more flexibility to respond to market conditions."
This proceeding is titled "In the Matter
of Amendment of the Commission’s Part 90 Rules in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928
MHz Bands". This NPRM is FCC 06-24 in WT Docket No. 06-49.
Initial comments are due by May 30, 2006. Reply comments are due by June 30, 2006.
|Gonzales Discusses Electronic Surveillance
and Data Sharing
3/7. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a
in London, England, in which he discussed, among other topics, electronic
surveillance and data sharing.
He said, "Take, for example, the issue of electronic surveillance, which has
come to the fore in the current debate over the U.S.’s terrorist surveillance
program. Critics have expressed concern about civil liberties and privacy
interests. As I have stated many times, the program is both fully constitutional
and fully protective of civil liberties. And while such issues must be resolved
under our own Constitution and laws, it is noteworthy that the practice of
obtaining electronic surveillance without a judicial warrant has long been
accepted in Europe as something that can be accomplished with proper respect for
liberty and privacy interests. France, for example, allows public prosecutors to
order wiretapping without judicial warrant if they believe doing so would be
useful for determining whether a terrorist offense has occurred. Here in the UK,
the Home Secretary has the same power, subject to careful checks."
He also discussed data sharing. He said that "One area in which we clearly
must do more to learn from each other involves the sharing of data regarding
terror suspects. A central challenge faced by all our countries is how to ensure
that data is gathered and shared in ways that maximize the safety of our
citizens without endangering their legitimate privacy interests. In Europe, the
EU Commission has advanced the ``principle of availability´´ to encourage data
sharing among EU countries for criminal justice purposes. Significantly, this
principle would permit the sharing not only of traditional criminal justice
information, but also fingerprint, DNA, and border control data."
He continued that "Some contemplate erecting barriers against sharing data
with partners outside the EU if their privacy systems do not precisely match the
EU’s. Yet some of these privacy systems, while not identical to the EU’s, aim at
very much the same result. The U.S., for instance, recognizes a right of
privacy. While we implement that right in a different fashion than the EU, the
core principles and protections remain the same. It is for this reason that we
have been able to partner in data sharing arrangements with Europol and to work
with the EU to fashion data protection provisions for the Council of Europe
Cybercrime Convention. It would be a great loss to both the US and Europe if we
were not able to do the same thing in the terrorism context. Neither side can
afford to erect new walls that preclude us from sharing critical information
about terror suspects."
6/8. The story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves IP
Jurisdiction Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,322, March 3, 2006, stated
that "The House Judiciary Committee (HJC)
approved HR 2955,
the ``Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005´´, by voice
vote, without amendment." In fact, the HJC approved two amendments.
All of the language of the bill quoted and summarized in the story remained
unchanged by the two amendments.
However, the HJC added a new section to the bill on March 2. This adds a new Section 1632 to
Title 28 that provides, in full, that "When a case is appealed to the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit under section 1295(a)(1), and no claim for relief arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection is the subject
of the appeal by any party, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall transfer
the appeal to the court of appeals for the regional circuit embracing the district from
which the appeal has been taken." See,
amendment [PDF] revises the title language that describes the bill.
The words "without amendment" have been deleted from the versions of this
story that will be published in the TLJ web site.
See also, following story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Amendment
Regarding Jurisdiction of Federal Circuit", which explains this new Section 1632.
|House Judiciary Committee Approves Amendment
Regarding Jurisdiction of Federal Circuit
3/2. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC)
approved HR 2955,
the "Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005", on
March 2, 2006, by voice vote, with two amendments.
First, the HJC approved a
amendment [PDF] that adds a new Section 1632 to Title 28 that provides, in full, that
"When a case is appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under
section 1295(a)(1), and no claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress
relating to patents or plant variety protection is the subject of the appeal by
any party, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall transfer the
appeal to the court of appeals for the regional circuit embracing the district
from which the appeal has been taken."
Second, the HJC approved a minor
second amendment [PDF] that revises the title language that describes the bill.
See also, March 6 HJC
of bill as amended [PDF].
Purpose of HR 2955. This bill is a response to the Supreme Court's
in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S.
826 (2002). See, story titled "Supreme Court Rules on Appellate Jurisdiction of
Federal Circuit" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 443, June 4, 2002. In the Holmes
case the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction
cannot be based solely upon a patent counterclaim. Critics of the Holmes
opinion have argued that this reduces federal control over IP cases, reduces uniformity
of patent law, and encourages forum shopping. See, story titled "CIIP
Subcommittee to Mark Up Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,162, June 27, 2005.
The bill, as introduced by Rep. Lamar
Smith (R-TX), the Chairman of the HJC's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and
Intellectual Property, on June 16, 2005, contains several provisions intended to
ensure the the federal courts maintain control over IP litigation, and that the
Federal Circuit maintains control over appeals in patent cases.
However, one amendment approved by the HJC on March 2 has the effect of
limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit. That is, it provides that if
there is a case pending before the Federal Circuit, based upon its patent
jurisdiction, for which there is no patent claim or counterclaim, the Federal
Circuit shall transfer the appeal to the regional circuit in which the case arose. For
example, there may have been a case in the District Court involving both patent
claims, and non-patent claims. The District Court would have jurisdiction. If
the case were appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the patent issues were not
raised, or suffered from some other jurisdictional defect, then the case would
be moved to a regional circuit.
Purpose of March 2 Amendment. Rep. Smith, the
sponsor of HR 2955, wrote in a prepared statement on March 2 that the purpose of
this amendment is "to ensure that litigants do not use H.R. 2955 to file
frivolous patent suits to avoid adjudicating antitrust disputes in the regional
He added that due to the broad jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, and the history of
the legislation that created the Federal Circuit, "It is therefore inevitable and appropriate
... that the Federal Circuit handle some non-patent business disputes
when related and non-frivolous patent claims are present."
But, he added, "Even so, for cases regarding business disputes that do not involve patents,
the Federal Circuit is bound to apply the law of the relevant regional circuit."
Finally, Smith stated that the committee reports from the 1981 legislation
that created the Federal Circuit both specifically stated that "immaterial,
inferential, and frivolous allegations of patent questions will not create
jurisdiction" in the Federal Circuit. He added, "In fact, the Federal Circuit
itself has taken this admonition to heart, quoting the text of the Committee
Reports in its opinions, when relevant. These safeguards provide a robust
deterrent to those litigants wishing to gain access to the Federal circuit
by filing frivolous patent claims. That said, the amendment before us will
ensure that frivolous patent cases will not find their way to the Federal
Perhaps it should be noted that not only can a plaintiff file a frivolous
patent claim along with a non-patent claim in the District Court, but, if HR
2955 as amended is enacted into law, then that same plaintiff could file a
frivolous appeal of an adverse judgment on it frivolous patent claim. This,
then, would preserve the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit under the language
of the just approved amendment. The Federal Circuit could reject the case on
basis of the frivolity of the patent claim. But, this would be based upon the
legislative history of the bill that created the Federal Circuit, and Federal
Circuit precedent, and not on HR 2955 as amended.
Impact of March 2 Amendment. Had the March 2 amendment been in effect in
recent years, some of the most important
technology related cases decided by the Federal Circuit, would have been decided by one of the
regional circuits, rather than by the Federal Circuit.
For example, the Federal Circuit's August 31, 2004
opinion [46 pages in MS
Word] in Chamberlain v. Skylink is one of the few opinions
involving the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA), which are codified at
17 U.S.C. § 1201.
While the anti-circumvention provision bear some conceptual similarity to patent
protection (both provide a right to exclude another from using certain
technology), the DMCA is not a part of the Patent Act.
Chamberlain filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. This District is in the 7th Circuit. Chamberlain pled patent infringement,
and violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Chamberlain lost in the
District Court on it patent claims. However, it did not raise the patent issues on appeal.
The only issue on appeal was application of the DMCA.
The Federal Circuit wrote a detailed analysis of the jurisdictional issue.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction was based upon
18 U.S.C. § 1295,
which provides that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over "an
appeal from a final decision of a district court ... if the jurisdiction of that
court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 ..." In turn,
18 U.S.C. § 1338
provides that the District Court has jurisdiction over patent infringement
claims. It reasoned that since Chamberlain pled patent infringement in the
District Court, the District Court had jurisdiction. And since the District
Court had jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction.
Had the amendment approved by the HJC on March 2 been in effect in 2004, the
Federal Circuit would have transferred the appeal 7th Circuit. Moreover, there
is a good chance that the appeal would have been heard by a three Judge panel
that included Richard
Posner, who then most likely would have written the opinion. Posner is the
co-author of the recently published book titled "The Economic Structure of
Intellectual Property Law".
Instead, Judge Arthur
Gajarsa wrote the opinion for the Federal Circuit. One might speculate that the
7th Circuit too would have affirmed the District Court, but with a different analysis.
See, story titled "Federal Circuit Rejects Anti-Circumvention Claim in Garage
Door Opener Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 971, September 7, 2004.
Another major case that would have been affected had this amendment been in effect
was Independent Ink v. Illinois Tool Works. Independent Ink filed
a complaint in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Trident and Illinois Tool Works.
It sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against
Trident's patents. It also alleged that Trident was engaged in illegal tying and
monopolization in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which are
15 U.S.C. § 1 and
§ 2. The District Court had jurisdiction because of both the patent claim
and the antitrust claims.
However, on appeal, the only issue was antitrust. Nevertheless, the Federal
Circuit had jurisdiction under 1295(a)(1) because the District Court had
jurisdiction under 1338.
Had HR 2955, as amended on March 2, been in effect, the 9th Circuit, rather
than the Federal Circuit, would have heard the appeal.
See also, story
titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,158, June 21, 2005, and story titled "Supreme Court Vacates in
Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,321, March 2, 2006.
Summary of the Statutory Language. 28 U.S.C. § 1338, which pertains to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District
Courts, currently provides as follows. (The language highlighted in bold would be
replaced by HR 2955.)
"(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action
arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety
protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction
shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety
protection and copyright cases.
(b) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action
asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and
related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) apply to exclusive rights in mask works under
chapter 9 of title 17, and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of
title 17, to the same extent as such subsections apply to copyrights."
HR 2955, as introduced, and as approved by the HJC on March 2, amends this.
It deletes the second sentence of subsection (a), and replaces it with the
"No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or
This is perhaps the most important part of HR 2955. It prevents state courts
from deciding patent or copyright cases, solely because the IP issue were raised
by way of counterclaim, rather than in the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), which pertains to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Circuit, currently provides as follows. (The language highlighted in bold would
be replaced by HR 2955.)
"(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have
exclusive jurisdiction -- (1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of
the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,
the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District
Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, if the jurisdiction of
that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title, except that a
case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights,
exclusive rights in mask works, or trademarks and no other claims under section 1338
(a) shall be governed by sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of this title;"
HR 2955, as introduced, and as approved by the HJC on March 2, would change
this to the following.
"in any civil action in which a party has asserted a claim for relief arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection;"
That is, as amended, § 1295(a)(1) no longer references § 1338.
The amendment to HR 2955 approved on March 2 creates, at 28 U.S.C. § 1632, a
new section that
provides as follows.
"When a case is appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit under section 1295(a)(1), and no claim for relief arising under any Act
of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection is the subject of
the appeal by any party, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall
transfer the appeal to the court of appeals for the regional circuit embracing
the district from which the appeal has been taken."
Also, HR 2955, as introduced, and as approved by the HJC on March 2, creates,
at 28 U.S.C. § 1454, a new section that provides as
"(a) IN GENERAL.---A civil action in which any party
asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to
patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights may be removed to the district
court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
(b) SPECIAL RULES.---The removal of an action under this section shall be
made in accordance with section 1446 of this chapter, except that if the removal
is based solely on this section -- (1) the action may be removed by any party;
and (2) the time limitations contained in section 1446(b) may be extended at any
time for cause shown.
(c) REMAND.---If a civil action is removed solely under this section, the
district court -- (1) shall remand all claims that are not within the original or
supplemental jurisdiction of the district court under any Act of Congress; and (2) may,
under the circumstances specified in section 1367(c), remand any claims within the
supplemental jurisdiction of the district court under section 1367."
Title 28 of the U.S. Code deals with the judiciary and judicial procedure.
Part IV of Title 28 deals with jurisdiction and venue. All of the above language
pertains to Part IV. The new § 1454 is so numbered because that is the next
available sequential number in Chapter 89, which deals with removal jurisdiction
of the District Courts. The new § 1632 is so numbered because that is the next
available sequential number in Chapter 99, which deals with "General
Provisions". The drafter chose not to place this new section in Chapter 83,
which deals with the jurisdiction and venue of the Courts of Appeals.
|House Approves S 2271
3/7. The House approved
the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006", by
a vote of 280-138. See,
Roll Call No. 20.
The Senate approved the bill on March 1, 2006, by a vote of 95-4. See,
Roll Call No. 25. This bill, along with the
[PDF] on HR 3199,
the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005", are now
ready for President Bush's signature.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
(R-WI), the Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee (HJC) offered this explanation of the bill. "This bill
includes three additional clarifications of the conference report to address
concerns raised by some Members of the other body. First, current law does not
expressly provide a recipient of a section 215 order or a national security
letter the right to challenge it. The conference report clearly delineated
judicial review for such challenges, including the ability of NSL recipients to
challenge an accompanying nondisclosure order. S. 2271 would extend the section
215 recipients similar access to judicial review, to challenge and attach the
nondisclosure order." See, Congressional Record, March 7, 2006, at Page
Second, said Rep. Sensenbrenner, "Second, because of national security
concerns, the conference report contained language that would allow the
government to ask a recipient of one of these national security orders to
identify the persons to whom disclosure will be or was made. The Director of
National Intelligence expressed concern that without this safeguard, a recipient
could disclose the government's investigative efforts to a person with ties to
hostile foreign governments or entities. The conference report permitted the
government to determine whether a request is warranted, and if the defendant has
made such a request to determine whether the disclosure affected an ongoing
investigation. An exception was included for information that might interfere
with attorney-client relations, specifically barring the disclosure of the
identity of an attorney to whom a recipient planned to disclose. This bill
extends the exception to prevent the government from requesting the name of
counsels with whom the recipient had already consulted."
Third, "S. 2271 clarifies current law that a library may only be subject to
an NSL request if it falls under 18 U.S.C. 2516(15), which defines an electronic
communications service provider as any service which provides to users thereof
the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communication. This change
addresses the potential for misuse alleged by critics of the legislation."
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the HJC, spoke in
opposition. He said that "We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act
while the wreck of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when
we refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own government,
including the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. And today, we are
failing yet again, by taking up S. 2771. Not only is the bill substantively
dangerous, it does nothing to respond to the serious flaws in the conference
said Rep. Conyers (at right), "the bill is dangerous because it makes it
practically impossible to challenge the gag orders that come with secretive 215
orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full year before
challenging a gag order, it deems government certifications concerning possible
harm to national security to be ``conclusive.'' This is far worse than what is
proposed by the conference report which would allow the FISA court to ensure
that the law and the Constitution are not violated." See, Congressional Record,
March 7, 2006, at Page H584-5.
And second, "the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious
problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill pretends to
protect libraries from receiving National Security Letters, but then revokes
that protection if the library offers internet access. The bill does nothing to
prevent the government from using security letters to obtain confidential
information having nothing to do with terrorism; nothing to protect secret
physical searches of homes and offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Wednesday, March 8
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will begin consideration of
the lobbying reform bill.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of
a bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings, and
S 829, the
"Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005". The agenda also includes
consideration of several nominations, including Steven Bradbury (to be Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal
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. Location: Room 226,
10:00 AM. The
House Commerce Committee (HCC)
will meet to mark up HR __, the "Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone
Records Act". The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. See,
notice. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735. Location: Room
2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking
Committee will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
The witnesses will be James Lambright (acting President of the Ex-Im Bank), Gerald Rama
(SVP of PNC Bank), and Al Merritt (President of MD International). See,
notice. Location: Room __, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court
of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in LG Electronics v. Bizcom
Electronics, an appeal from the U.S.
District Court (NDCal) in a case involving the issue of patent misuse. This
is App. Ct. No. 05-1261. Location: Courtroom 210, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 - 11:30 AM. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 33, at
Page 8566. The public must request permission to attend by March 2. Location:
Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
2:00 PM. The House
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
will hold a hearing on the Copyright Office's
(CO) report [133 pages in
PDF] titled "Report on Orphan Works". The witnesses will be Jule Sigall
(primary author of the report), Allan Adler (Association
of American Publishers), David Trust (Professional
Photographers of America), and Maria Hyun
(Guggenheim Museum). See,
notice. See also, story
titled "Copyright Office Recommends Orphan Works Legislation" in
E-Mail Alert No. 1,302, February 2, 2006. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development will hold a
hearing titled "Piracy and Counterfeiting in China". The witnesses
will be Chris Israel (Coordinator for International Intellectual Property
Enforcement at the Department of Commerce), Franklin Vargo (National Association of
Manufacturers), Andy York (Leupold & Stevens), and
Alford (Harvard Law School). Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202
224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202
224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding
telecommunications relay services and speech-to-speech services for individuals with
hearing and speech disabilities, and access to emergency services. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 21, at
Pages 5221-5231. This NPRM is FCC 05-196 in CG Docket No. 03-123. The FCC
adopted this item on November 18, 2005, and released in on November 30, 2005.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding its (1)
notice of proposed rulemaking, and (2) proposed revenue procedure, pertaining to tax
return preparers' use and disclosure of tax return information in an electronic
environment. See, IRS
notice in the Federal Register that describes and recites proposed changes to its
U.S.C. § 7216, Federal Register, December 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 235, at Pages 72954
- 72964. See also, IRS web site
notice [16 pages in PDF] that describes and contains the proposed revenue procedure.
And see, story titled "IRS Releases Proposed Rules Regarding Electronic Tax
Preparation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,268, December 8, 2005.
|Thursday, March 9
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The
Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a day
long conference titled "The Digital Age Communications Act: Towards a New
Market-Oriented Communications Policy in 2006". See,
registration page. Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The
Cato Institute and the Brookings Institution will
jointly host a one day event titled "The Marketplace of Democracy: A
Conference on Electoral Competition and American Politics". The agenda includes
a panel discussion from 10:30 - 11:45 AM that includes
Brad Smith, who is a
professor at Capital University Law School, a former member of the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), and an
opponent of FEC regulation of internet based speech. See,
notice, agenda and
registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. See,
notice. The SJC
frequently cancels or postpones 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Nash v. Microsoft. This is
App. Ct. No. 05-1385. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.
3:15 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing on the nomination of Robert McDowell
to be a Commissioner of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). See,
Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202
224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC.
Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
TIME? The Board of Directors of the
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will meet.
Location: AIPLA, Headquarters Board Room, Arlington, VA.
|Friday, March 10
Republican Whip Notice states that "no votes are expected in the House".
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Patent Office Professionals
Association v. FSLA, App. Ct. No. 05-1173. Judges Henderson, Garland and Edwards
will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Media Security
and Reliability Council (MSRC) will meet. See, FCC
notice and agenda [PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th
5:00 PM EST. Deadline to submit requests to testify
at the Copyright Office's hearings on possible
exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that
control access to copyrighted works. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303.
See also, stories titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA
Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005, and "Copyright Office Announces Hearings
on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,318, February 27, 2006.
|Monday, March 13
2:00 - 3:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce's Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP) will hold
a monthly meeting. See,
For more information, contact Scott Eisner ncfevents at uschamber dot com or
202 463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.
|Tuesday, March 14
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Wireless Issues / Spectrum
notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens)
at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast
by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Patent Office
Speaks". The speakers will include John Doll (Commissioner of Patents, U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office), Peggy Focarino (Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Operations), and Jay Lucas (acting Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy). Darrell Mottley (Banner & Witcoff) will moderate. The price to
attend ranges from $20 - $40. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See,
Location: The Westin Embassy Row Hotel, 2100 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee will hold a hearing titled "Wall Street's Perspective on
Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at
202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by
the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
TIME? The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering
Council (NANC) will hold a meeting. Location: ___.
TIME? The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) will hold a hearing on the proposed free trade
agreement with the Republic of Korea. The USTR seeks comments on, among
other topics, "electronic commerce issues" and "trade-related intellectual
property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations". See,
notice in the Federal Register: February 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 27, at
Pages 6820-6821. Location: Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, NW.
Day one of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
titled titled "CEA Spring Break". See,
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [26 pages in PDF] regarding Section 621(a)(1)'s
directive that local franchising authorities (LFAs) not unreasonably refuse to award
competitive franchises. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 3, 2005, and released
it on November 18, 2005. It is FCC 05-189 in MB Docket No. 05-311. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 239, at Pages 73973
- 73980. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Local Franchising of Video
Services" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,247, November 4, 2005.
|Wednesday, March 15
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Portable Curator --
The Legal and Business Considerations of Providing High-Tech Handheld Devices to Museum
Visitors". The speakers will include Jennifer Berry (Acoustiguide), Allison
Cohen (attorney), and Bruce Falk (Smithsonian Institution). The price to attend ranges
from $10-$15. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See,
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Lower Level 7, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
9:00 AM - 12:15 PM. The
Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA)
Wireless Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled
"Economic Analysis and FCC Decision Making". The price to attend ranges
from $50 to $150. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on March 10. See,
form [PDF]. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW, 13th floor.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Professional Responsibility Committee will
host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be planning a spring continuing legal education (CLE)
seminar. For more information, contact Peter Connolly at 202 862-5989 or Peter dot connolly
at hklaw dot com. Location: Holland & Knight, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave.
2:30 PM. The
Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Innovation
and Competitiveness Legislation". See,
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. Press
contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202
224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications to the
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) for Pacific Education and Communications Experiments
(PEACESAT) program grants. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 29, at
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will
begin Auction No. 64 (Full Power Television Construction Permits). See, notice in
the Federal Register, December 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 248, at Pages 76836 - 76849.
Day two of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
titled titled "CEA Spring Break". This will also be the first day of
a two day "Entertainment Technology Summit". And, at 6:30 PM there will be
an event titled "Digital Patriots Dinner". Bill Gates will receive an award.
|People and Appointments
3/7. President Bush announced his intent to appoint
Ch/CEO of Juniper Networks, to be a Member
of the President's National
Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee. See, White House
3/7. President Bush announced that he has withdrawn the nomination of
James Payne to be a Judge of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Bush made the nomination on
September 29, 2005. See, White House
release. He is currently a Judge of the
U.S. District Court (EDOkla).
President Bush appointed him. He was confirmed by the Senate on October 23,
2001. From 1988 until 2001 he was a Magistrate Judge in that District. See, DOJ
3/7. Randall Fons, Regional Director of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC)
Central Regional Office, which covers the states of Colorado, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico, will leave the SEC in late March to
become a partner in the Denver office of the law firm of
Morrison & Foerster. See, SEC
release and MoFo
|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