6/26. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, a case involving the pleading requirements for an action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act against regional bell operating companies (RBOCs). See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 3.

Introduction. The legal is issue is whether a complaint that alleges parallel or similar behavior, and conspiracy to limit competition, but includes no allegations in support other than the similar or parallel conduct, is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

This is a class action antitrust suit against the RBOCs alleging conspiracy to exclude competitors from, and not to compete against one another in, their respective geographic markets for local telephone and high speed internet services.

However, the Supreme Court's opinion will affect proceedings in a variety of other communications and information technology sectors, as well as non-tech industries.

The U.S. District Court (SDNY) dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) vacated and remanded. See, October 3, 2005, opinion [43 pages in PDF]. And now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Proceedings Below. The class action law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman filed the complaint. The lead named plaintiff is Twombly. See also, story titled "Milberg Weiss Indicted for Paying Illegal Kickbacks to Class Action Plaintiffs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006.

The complaint alleges violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1. The plaintiffs seek treble damages pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, which are codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26.

The complaint alleges that the RBOCs conspired with one another to keep competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) from competing successfully in their respective territories. It also alleges that there is an agreement among the defendants not to compete with each other.

The complaint does not allege that there is any document that constitutes or memorializes any such agreements. Rather, it makes assertions regarding the motives and parallel conduct of the defendants.

Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides, in part, that "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished ..."

The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It held that parallel conduct does not amount to conspiracy under federal antitrust law. See, opinion reported at 313 F. Supp. 2d 174.

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal. See, story titled "2nd Circuit Vacates in Twombly v. Bell Atlantic" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,226, October 4, 2005.

It wrote that "We are reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, not the grant of a motion for summary judgment, however. To survive a motion to dismiss ... an antitrust claimant must allege only the existence of a conspiracy and a sufficient supporting factual predicate on which that allegation is based." It added that "to rule that allegations of parallel anticompetitive conduct fail to support a plausible conspiracy claim, a court would have to conclude that there is no set of facts that would permit a plaintiff to demonstrate that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence."

The Court continued that "if a plaintiff can plead facts in addition to parallelism to support an inference of collusion -- what we have referred to above as ``plus factors´´ at the summary judgment stage -- that only strengthens the plausibility of the conspiracy pleading. But plus factors are not required to be pleaded to permit an antitrust claim based on parallel conduct to survive dismissal."

The Court acknowledged that such a principle will "likely lead defendants to pay plaintiffs to settle what would ultimately be shown to be meritless claims", and that "the success of such meritless claims encourages others to be brought". Yet, it offered the rationale that "in a regime that contemplates the enforcement of antitrust laws in large measure by private litigants, although litigation to summary judgment and beyond may place substantial financial and other burdens on the defendants, neither the Federal Rules nor the Supreme Court has placed on plaintiffs the requirement that they plead with special particularity the details of the conspiracies whose existence they allege."

Following denial of rehearing by the Court of Appeals, the RBOCs petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.

Amicus Briefs. This case has attracted numerous amicus briefs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, CTIA, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Northwest Airlines, and United Airlines argued in a joint amicus brief [25 pages in PDF] that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari and reverse the Court of Appeals.

They argued that the "plaintiffs' counsel are engaged in opportunistic behavior in the hope of extorting a settlement". They wrote that this is a "gargantuan" case brought on behalf of "virtually every business in the continental United States and every human being who has set foot in the continental United States over a multi-year period. Even more remarkably, this case is one in which the defendants are facilities based local telephone service providers that serve the overwhelming majority of all consumers in the continental United States, and in which the allegation is that, but for a vaguely pleaded ``conspiracy,´´ the entire industry structure would have been different, with each defendant entering markets it has chosen not to enter."

They argued that this case presents the Supreme Court an excellent opportunity to apply to massive antitrust class actions the principle "that pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice".

William Baumol and 24 other economists and scholars submitted a brief [30 pages in PDF] that provides an economic analysis of the 2nd Circuit's opinion. Hewitt Pate, a former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and now at the law firm of Hunton & Williams, and Paul Hayes, are the attorneys of record.

Baumol is an economist, and author of the book titled The Free-Market Innovation Machine [Amazon]. The other amici include Robert Crandall (Brookings) and Gerald Faulhaber (Wharton), both of whom write and speak frequently on the economics of the communications industry.

The economist amici argue that "the Second Circuit has taken antitrust enforcement in a misguided direction by adopting its ``parallel behavior is enough´´ standard and in failing to require that a complaint contain facts sufficient to support an inference of conspiracy."

They continue that "the ``parallel behavior is enough´´ standard would impose direct costs on business firms (in the form of diverted management time) and deadweight costs on the economy (through resources used up in rent-seeking litigation). More significantly, in our view, pricing, entry, marketing, and other business decisions would be colored by a dismissal rule that, in effect, opens U.S. businesses to unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy to restrain trade." (Parentheses in original.)

"Parallel behavior is a common feature of the dynamic competitive market processes." They add that parallel behavior might be construed to include innocent and efficient types conduct, such as adopting the same technology, or failing to adopt a new technology. Hence, failure to overturn the 2nd Circuit could cause companies to engage in inefficient behavior, which in turn, would harm consumers.

Other trade groups representing also filed amicus briefs, including the American Petroleum Institute, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Timothy Muris, a former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and now at O'Melveny & Myers, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mastercard International Inc. and Visa Inc.

This case is This case is Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. William Twombly, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 05-1126, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 03-9213. Judge Sack wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Raggi and Hall joined. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Gerald Lynch presiding.

6/23. President Bush issued an executive order titled "Protecting the Property Rights of the American People". While the order does not reference the opinion of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London, it addresses issues raise by that case.

The order states that "It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

The order does not affect takings by state and local governments. It is also replete with exceptions.

The order states that it exempts "a taking ... for the purpose of ... projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity". It also exempts a taking for the purpose of "conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right".

It also exempts a taking for the purpose of "military, law enforcement, public safety, ... or public health emergencies".

The order is otherwise silent on takings of intellectual property rights, including drug patents, other patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

6/23. Vice President Richard Cheney gave a speech in Chicago, Illinois at a campaign event for Dave Mcsweeney, who is challenging the incumbent, Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL), to represent the Illinois 8th District.

This District includes Schaumburg, which is home to Motorola. This District was represented by former Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL) for over 30 years. Before his election in 1969, the seat was held by former Rep. Donald Rumsfeld (R-IL). Crane lost in 2004, in part because of his lack of attention to politics. Republicans want to take back the seat.

Cheney said that "There is still hard work ahead in the global war on terror. ... We've reached the point where a number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal."

He elaborated on the positions of prominent Democrats on terrorism related issues. While he did not mention any of Rep. Bean's positions, he perhaps intended to associate her with Democrats such as Sen. Kerry, Howard Dean, and Sen. Harry Reid, whom he did mention in the speech.

VP Cheney argued that "it's vital we have strong partners like Dave McSweeney in the Congress of the United States to help us".

Rep. Bean has supported the Bush administration in key terrorism related votes in the House. For example, she was one of only 44 Democrats who voted for HR 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005". It was approved by a vote of 251-174 on December 14, 2005. See, Roll Call No. 627. She was one of 66 Democrats who voted for S 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006". It was approved by a vote of 280-138 on March 7, 2006. See, Roll Call No. 20.

She voted on December 19, 2005, for HR 2863, the FY 2006 Department of Defense appropriations bill. She voted on April 26, 2006, for HR 5020, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities.

That is, Rep. Bean has supported Bush's and Cheney's positions on a number of key votes.

One of the issues that Cheney discussed at length was electronic surveillance. He first discussed the electronic intercepts program disclosed by the New York Times in December of 2006. He said that this is "the terrorist surveillance program some of you have heard recently referred to as the domestic surveillance program by the press corps. It is not domestic surveillance. This is a program that's targeted upon communications one end of which is outside the United States, and one end of which, we believe, is affiliated with al Qaeda. It is a good program."

He continued that "There's another program that has been in the papers this morning that deals with finances, that is referred to -- or I will refer to it as a the terrorist finance tracking program, that allows us to track the movements of funds internationally that are al Qaeda-related and al Qaeda-affiliated."

Cheney said, "Now, the President has been criticized. We've been criticized, the administration on the terrorist surveillance program -- may also be criticized on the financial program by our opponents. Russ Feingold, the senator from Wisconsin, has called for the censure of the President over the terrorist surveillance program. The fact of the matter is that these are good, solid sound programs. They are conducted in accordance with the laws of the land. They are -- they're carried in a manner that is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the President of the United States. They are absolutely essential in terms of protecting us against attacks. And I am personally persuaded that they are absolutely -- have been absolutely essential in the fact that we have not been hit again since 9/11."

"The thing that I find most disturbing about these stories -- even though these programs have been briefed to the Congress, and they are conducted in a way to guarantee and safeguard the civil liberties of the American people, what I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends me."

Cheney did not reference the National Security Agency's (NSA) program involving the collection of phone records, disclosed by USA Today in early May. TLJ spoke with a member of the staff of Rep. Bean who stated that she has not spoken or taken a position on either the program disclosed by USA Today in May, or the program disclosed by the New York Times last December.

Back on June 7, 2006, the Republican controlled House Rules Committee refused Rep. Bean's request to make in order an amendment to HR 5252, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act), that would have created a new Office of Internet Safety and Public Awareness at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It would have authorized appropriations for grants to qualifying entities to promote internet safety, and to launch a national public awareness campaign. This amendment is substantially identical to the stand alone bill that Rep. Bean introduced on March 16, 2006, HR 4982, the "Safeguarding America's Families by Enhancing and Reorganizing New and Efficient Technologies Act of 2006", or "SAFER NET Act".

Approval of the amendment might have bolstered Rep. Bean's support among Republican leaning suburban voters in the Illinois 8th District.

The House approved HR 5252 on June 8, 2006. See, story titled "Rules Committee Adopts Rule for Consideration of COPE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,387, June 8, 2006, and story titled "House Approves COPE Act, Without Network Neutrality Amendment" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,388, June 9, 2006.

Rep. Bean is also the sponsor of HR 1069, the "Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act", and HR 3140, the "Consumer Data Security and Notification Act of 2005".

6/23. Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, announced his resignation, effective July 7, 2006. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over transportation issues, praised Mineta in a release, and added that "I am assured that this retirement is an action sought by the Secretary himself." See also, statement by President Bush.

6/23. President Bush named John Emling as Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. He was previously Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs for Tax and Budget at the Department of the Treasury. See, White House release.

6/23. President Bush named Julie Goon as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. She previously worked at the Department of Health and Human Services as Senior Advisor to the Secretary, and as Director of Medicare Outreach at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and of Health and Human Services. See, White House release.

6/23. President Bush named Hunter Moorhead as Special Assistant to the President for Agriculture, Trade and Food Assistance. He previously worked for the Senate Appropriations Committee. See, White House release.

6/23. President Bush named John Smith as Associate Counsel to the President. He was previously an attorney at the law firm of Covington & Burling. Before that, he clerked for Sam Alito when he was a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir). See, White House release.

6/26. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Teleflex v. KSR, a patent case involving the issue of obviousness. See, Order List [13 pages in PDF] at page 3.

The facts giving rise to this case are not related information technology. This is a patent dispute involving adjustable floor pedals. The Court of Appeals merely issued a non-precedential opinion. However, this case has attracted the attention of technology companies such as Cisco and Microsoft.

They, and other amici, urged the Supreme Court to take the case, and use it as a 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. They 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.

TLJ summarized the issue, the precedent, the proceedings below, and several amicus briefs in an earlier story. See, story title "Supreme Court Requests Brief From Solicitor General in Patent Obviousness Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,227, October 5, 2005. See also, brief [23 pages in PDF] of Cisco and Microsoft, brief [25 pages in PDF] of the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), and brief [31 pages in PDF] of a group of law professors.

The Solicitor General filed a brief last month urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.

Jim DeLong of the PFF stated in a release on June 26, 2006 that "Our position stems logically from our dedication to the importance of intellectual property rights. For any IP regime to work, the nature of the rights must be well defined and appropriately limited. We think a good Supreme Court decision on the merits in KSR will actually enhance the rights of inventors, and the overall utility of the patent system as the great engine of American innovation."

This case is Teleflex, Inc., et al v. KSR International Co., Sup. Ct. No. 04-1350, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals number is 04-1152. The District Court number is 02-74586.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM for morning business.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will hold a mostly closed meeting. The open portion will be from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 111, at Pages 33477-33478. Location: U.S. Secret Service HQ (closed portions), and St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th & K Streets, NW (open portion).

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 5672, the "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rule. Location: Room H-313, Capitol Building.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may begin consideration of HR 5672, the "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will continue its mark up of the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Eric Solomon, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy. See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a panel discussion titled "Nuts and Bolts of Section 337 Practice Before the International Trade Commission". The speakers will include Maureen Browne (Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg) and Karin Norton (US International Trade Commission). The price to attend ranges from $15-$40. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Taxation Section will host a panel discussion titled "Taxing the Digital World: How do States Tax Downloads and other Electronic Stuff?". The speakers will include Mark Nebergall (Software Finance and Tax Executives Council), Matthew Tomalis (Federation of Tax Administrators), and Stephen Kranz (Council On State Taxation). The price to attend ranges from $15-$27. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

CANCELLED. 6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Private Equity Fund and Lender Issues in FCC-Regulated Businesses". See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on June 23. Location: Akin Gump, 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a panel discussion titled "Policymakers' Guide to Radio Frequency Identification". The participants will include Robert Cresanti (Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology) and Dan Caprio (Progress & Freedom Foundation). See, notice. Location: Room B339, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological Innovation Coexist?". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

Day one of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). At 8:30 AM, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein will speak. At 8:50 AM, there will be a panel discussion titled "The Great Debate: BWA Spectrum For Consumer Broadband And/Or Public Safety?". At 4:45 PM there will be an panel discussion titled "Wireless Stakes In The 'Net Neutrality' Debate". See, conference web site. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington DC.

The House will meet at at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HR 5672, the "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) may continue its mark up of the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2006 on November 6-24, 2006, in Ankara, Turkey. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798. Location: __.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate. See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 12:00 NOON on June 23. Location: Capital Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the fecond of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Capital Markets will hold a hearing titled "Investor Protection: A Review of Plaintiffs’ Attorney Abuses in Securities Litigation and Legislative Remedies". See also, story titled "Milberg Weiss Indicted for Paying Illegal Kickbacks to Class Action Plaintiffs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers and Diversity Committees will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Jeff Tignor at jhtig at aol dot com or Natalie Roisman at natalie dot roisman at fcc dot gov. Location: Poste -- Modern Brasserie, 555 8th Street, NW.

Day two of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. At 10:45 AM there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Surveying Options For New North American Spectrum Acquisition & Valuation". At 1:30 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Looming Issues For U.S. BWA Carriers". At 2:45 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Meet The FCC Legal Advisors". Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

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

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "The U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement". Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

DELAYED TO AUGUST 9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will commence Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands.

Day three of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. At 9:45 AM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Is Your Spectrum At Risk? Preparing For The World Radio Conference 2007". At 1:30 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "U.S. Telecom Act Reform: Prospects & Wireless Implications?". At 2:45 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Small Carrier Tutorial On Meeting FCC 911 & CALEA Obligations". Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

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

10:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in Cisco Systems v. Teles AG, D.C. No. 1:2005-cv-02048-RBW, a case involving U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453, titled "Method for transmitting data in a telecommunications network and switch for implementing said method". Judge Walton will preside. Location: Courtroom 5, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

Day four of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) regarding criminal remedies. See, notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, May 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 104, at Pages 30863-30864.

EXTENDED TO JULY 31. Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register regarding revisions to guidelines used by USPTO personnel in their review of patent applications to determine whether the claims in a patent application are directed to patent eligible subject matter. The USPTO seeks comments on, among other topics, "claims that perform data transformation" and "claims directed to a signal per se". With respect to the later, the USPTO asks "If claims directed to a signal per se are determined to be statutory subject matter, what is the potential impact on internet service providers, satellites, wireless fidelity (WiFi [reg]), and other carriers of signals?" See, Federal Register, December 20, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 243, at Pages 75451 - 75452. See also, story titled "USPTO Seeks Comments on Subject Matter Eligible for Patents" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,278, December 22, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register (June 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 114, at Pages 34307-34308) extending deadline, and story titled "USPTO Seeks Further Comments on Patentable Subject Matter" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,391, June 14, 2006.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding licensing and use of frequencies in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz portions of the 902-928 MHz band that are used for the provision of Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (M-LMS band). This NPRM is FCC 06-24 in WT Docket No. 06-49. See, text [24 pages in PDF] of NPRM; notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Pages 15658-15666; and story titled "FCC Releases NPRM on M-LMS Systems" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,325, March 8, 2006.

Effective data of the Library of Congress's Copyright Office's fee increases. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 59, at Pages 15368-15371.

The House will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. See, Majority Whip's calendar.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding telecommunications relay services (TRS) and speech to speech services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities, and misuse of internet protocol relay service and video relay service. This item is FCC 06-58 in CG Docket No. 03-123. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 105, at Pages 31131-31137.

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.