1/28. President Bush gave a speech titled "State of the Union Address" in the chamber of the House of Representatives. He advocated passage of surveillance related legislation, including liability protection for companies. He called for more federal spending on research, but said nothing about the just lapsed research and development tax credit. He advocated free trade agreements, and a Doha round agreement.

President Bush discussed government surveillance authority in very broad and vague terms. He did not reference any pending bills, or even the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He said that "Dedicated men and women in our government toil day and night to stop the terrorists from carrying out their plans. These good citizens are saving American lives, and everyone in this chamber owes them our thanks. And we owe them something more: We owe them the tools they need to keep our people safe. And one of the most important tools we can give them is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning. Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on February the 1st. That means if you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted."

Bush also discussed immunity for telecommunications companies. Although, he used the broader term of "liability protection". Also, he advocated protection, not for carriers, but more broadly for "companies believed to have assisted". Specifically, he said that "Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now."

He had nothing to say about broadband deployment, communications services, or spectrum issues, other than with respect to surveillance.

He discussed research. He said that "To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth."

However, he said nothing about extending the research and development (R&D) tax credit, which expired at the end of 2007.

He did say that "last week, my administration reached agreement with Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner on a robust growth package that includes tax relief for individuals and families and incentives for business investment." However, this does not include extension of the R&D tax credit. See, Rep. John Boehner's (R-OH) summary of the agreement, and White House press office summary.

There are bills pending that would permanently extend the R&D tax credit. See, HR 2138 [LOC | WW], the "Investment in America Act of 2007", and S 2209 [LOC | WW], the "Research Credit Improvement Act of 2007". However, when, or if, the Congress extends the R&D credit, it is not likely to be in a stand alone bill, but rather as part of a larger legislative package.

He discussed trade. He said that "our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world. So we're working to break down barriers to trade and investment wherever we can. We're working for a successful Doha Round of trade talks, and we must complete a good agreement this year. At the same time, we're pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements."

Bush did not discuss reform of patent or other intellectual property laws, except to say that he opposes patents on human life. He said that "I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life."

He discussed health care, but not the digitization or electronic storage of medical records, or the protection of medical privacy.

He discussed secondary education, but not with respect to science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

1/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its opinion [36 pages in PDF] in Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, a copyright declaratory judgment action. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court, which had dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Introduction. The defendants invoked eBay's DMCA take down procedure to terminate the plaintiffs' auction of fabrics with the image of the cartoon character Betty Boop. These cartoons parody copyrighted posters of the artist known as Erté. These take down demands can damage an internet based business. When the plaintiffs brought an action in their District Court seeking a declaration that they violated no copyright, the defendants asserted, and the District Court agreed, that the defendants' take down demands were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction upon the District Court.

The Court of Appeals reversed in this case of first impression. When a copyright claimant invokes an auction site's take down procedure to terminate an auction, that is purposefully directed at the auction seller's state, and hence, supports a finding of personal jurisdiction in the seller's state.

Affirmance would have contributed to the ability of unscrupulous copyright claimants to make frivolous and disparaging take down demands for the purpose of damaging legitimate transactions and businesses. Infringing music, software, goods, and other infringing items are frequently sold through auction web sites, or otherwise published, distributed or sold through interactive computer services. However, copyright claimants also frequently make frivolous claims regarding non-infringing items. This includes attempts to suppress parodies, to block other fair uses protected by 17 U.S.C. § 107, to censor criticism, and to preclude secondary markets in items protected by the first sale doctrine.

(The first sale doctrine, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that "the owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title" can , "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy ...". Some copyright owners issue take down notices asserting that the terms of licensing contracts restrict secondary sales. However, such a claim sounds in contract, and the safe harbor provisions of the Copyright Act, which give copyright claimants leverage to induce service providers to terminate auctions, apply only to "infringement of copyright". See, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). But, development of the law on that issue will have to wait for future opinions.)

The courts in the present action have not yet addressed the issue of infringement. Nevertheless, it is likely that if this case, on remand, proceeds to judgment on the merits, the District Court would find that the Betty Boop auction items are lawful parodies, rather than infringing products, and that the defendants' take down demands lacked merit.

The Court of Appeals wrote that the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction is "one that has long eluded a definitive legal test and proven fertile ground for debate by law students, lawyers, and judges alike", and that the standards set in judicial opinions are "more aspirational than self-defining". This opinion, combined with related opinions, demonstrate that this elusiveness persists in the context of online activity.

For example, the courts are still developing clarity as to when the online activities of a defendant who resides in one district confer jurisdiction upon a court in a distant plaintiff's district when that distant plaintiff alleges a cause of action related to the plaintiff's online activities, such as defamation or infringement. Although, that is not the subject of this case.

This case concerns whether the district court where the plaintiff resides has personal jurisdiction when it is the plaintiff who is engaged in the online activity, and the distant defendant has engaged in some allegedly actionable conduct that is directed at harming or limiting the online activities of the plaintiff.

In this case the Court of Appeals held that there is personal jurisdiction in the plaintiffs' district when the distant defendants invoked eBay's take down process to terminate plaintiffs' auction, and potentially their ability to conduct their online business.

It should be noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) recently held in its opinion [19 pages in PDF] in Stroman Realty v. Wercinski, that there is no personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff files an action in its district against a distant state regulator alleging tortious efforts to prevent the plaintiff from doing business online. See, story titled "5th Circuit Rules No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Regulator of Online Commerce" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,700, January 15, 2008. Moreover, both the present case, and the 5th Circuit case, involve application of the Calder effects test.

Even if the two opinions can be distinguished or reconciled, they leave the law in a state of uncertainty. The meaning of phrases such as "minimum contacts", "purposely directed", and "aimed at the forum state" are as unclear as ever.

Background. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. (CV) is a Delaware corporation based in Connecticut. SevenArts, Ltd. is a British corporation. CV is SevenArts' agent in the U.S. They are the defendants below, and the appellees in this appeal.

Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors are a married couple who live in Hartsel, Colorado. They sell fabrics and handmade crafts from their home through the eBay internet auction web site. They are what eBay calls "power sellers". They have not incorporated. They are the plaintiffs below, and the appellants in this appeal.

They made and auctioned on eBay fabrics with the imprint of Betty Boop next to her pudgy little dog. Betty Boop began in the 1930s as an alluring feminine cartoon character with short curled black hair. She was a flapper, known for her tight skirts -- sometimes too short for her stockings. Her portrayal has varied over time with prevailing standards of propriety and censorship. She has also been depicted as a hoola dancer, as Rosie the Riveter, and with a blown up dress a la Marilyn Monroe. She is an American every girl.

SevenArts owns the copyrights for certain works by a costume designer and artist named Roman de Tirtoff, but known as "Erté". One is titled "Symphony in Black". Another, titled "Ebony in White", is largely identical to the first, except that it is its negative. Both depict a tall slim elegant woman posing with a tall slim hound dog who matches her attire. She wears a gown with a train, an ornate three piece fur, and matching fur hat, in aristocratic style. She ostentatiously flaunts her wealth and idle elitism. See, pictures in the SevenArts' web site. SevenArts sells these as posters for $125 each.

In the plaintiffs' fabrics, Betty Boop parodies this air of elegance, standing with a three section wrap, and her pudgy dog, mimicking the pose of Erté's heiress. The Erté posters prominently display the word "Erté", while the plaintiffs' fabrics display "Betty Boop".

eBay is based in California. The defendants delivered a notice of claimed infringement (NOCI) to eBay in which they alleged that the plaintiffs were auctioning prints that violate their copyrights. As a result, eBay terminated the auction. The plaintiffs submitted a counter notice to eBay contesting the validity of SevenArts' copyright claim.

The defendants also sent an e-mail to the plaintiffs threatening to file a federal lawsuit.

The Court of Appeals noted that this action "allegedly had adverse consequences for plaintiffs' business and future dealings with the auction site".

District Court. The plaintiffs filed a complaint pro se in U.S. District Court (DColo), the district in which they reside, against the defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that their prints do not infringe defendants' copyrights.

Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have named eBay as a defendant. Hence, the issues of whether eBay has infringed copyrights, and whether it falls within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512, are not at issue. Moreover, neither the District Court, nor the Court of Appeals, have yet addressed the question of whether the plaintiffs' fabrics infringe the defendants' copyrights.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The magistrate judge ruled that specific jurisdiction exists. However, the judge rejected the magistrate's recommendation, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs brought the present appeal, with the assistance of counsel, Gregory Beck, of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington DC.

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

The Court of Appeals noted that the Copyright Act does not address personal jurisdiction or service of process, and the state of Colorado's long arm statute confers the maximum jurisdiction consistent with the due process clause of the federal Constitution. Hence, this issue is reduced to due process analysis.

The Court of Appeals began its analysis with the Supreme Court's ruling in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), that the defendant must have such minimum contacts with the forum state as not to violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

It proceeded to examine whether the defendants purposely directed their activities toward the forum state. It then applied the Supreme Court's effects test announced in Calder v. Jones, 456 U.S. 783 (1984).

The Court of Appeals wrote, "Distilling Calder to its essence, we thus understand the Court to have found purposeful direction there because of the presence of (a) an intentional action (writing, editing, and publishing the article), that was (b) expressly aimed at the forum state (the article was about a California resident and her activities in California; likewise it was drawn from California sources and widely distributed in that state), with (c) knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state (defendants knew Ms. Jones was in California and her career revolved around the entertainment industry there)."

The Court of Appeals found that the "plaintiffs have alleged an intentional and wrongful act by defendants on which jurisdiction may permissibly be founded. Plaintiffs do not argue, and we do not remotely hold, that jurisdiction is proper simply based on plaintiffs’ decision to hold an eBay auction of materials that allegedly infringe upon defendants’ copyrights. Rather, it is essential to our analysis that it was defendants who in this case took the intentional action of sending a NOCI specifically designed to terminate plaintiffs’ auction, and defendants who followed that act with an express threat to sue within days in order to prevent the revival of plaintiffs’ auction." (Footnotes omitted.)

The defendants argued that their NOCI was directed not to plaintiffs in Colorado but to eBay in California. The Court of Appeals responded that while the notice "formally traveled only to California, it can be fairly characterized as an intended means to the further intended end of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado." It added that the defendants sent the notice "with the ultimate purpose of cancelling plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado. Their “express aim” thus can be said to have reached into Colorado".

The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendants' activities were purposely directed at the forum state.

Next, the Court wrote that "Having determined that defendants ``purposefully directed´´ their activities at the forum state, due process requires us next to ask whether plaintiffs’ injuries ``arise out of´´ defendants’ contacts with the forum jurisdiction." The Court added that it does not matter in this case whether a "but-for" or "proximate causation" test is applied. Either supports the finding the the injuries arise out of the defendants contacts.

As for "but-for" causation, the Court wrote that "if defendants had not claimed that plaintiffs were infringing their copyright, plaintiffs would have had no reason to seek a declaratory judgment that their actions did not run afoul of defendants' rights. The NOCI was also the cause in fact of the real world harm that plaintiffs seek to have remedied: the cancellation of their auction and the black mark on their eBay record. In the absence of the NOCI, plaintiffs would not have had to contend with either of those effects, and thus would have had no reason to attempt to hale defendants into court."

The Court of Appeals also explained why the defendants' actions where the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' claim.

Finally, the Court of Appeals wrote that to find personal jurisdiction, it must find that this would not "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice", as articulated in International Shoe.

The Court wrote, quoting from several precedents, that this involves consideration of the following factors: "(1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the forum state’s interests in resolving the dispute, (3) the plaintiff’s interest in receiving convenient and effectual relief, (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states [or foreign nations] in furthering fundamental social policies." (Brackets in original.)

The Court concluded that "None of these factors, separately or in combination, seem to weigh definitively in favor of defendants." It wrote that SevenArts' status as a British corporation is not a concern because the defendants have asserted that U.S. copyright law applies, because they threatened the plaintiffs with a lawsuit in the U.S., and because the actions in the U.S. of a U.S. agent subjected SevenArts to jurisdiction in the U.S.

The Court also noted that the defendants argued that there is a "federal interest in allowing federal copyright holders to alert potential infringers of their rights and encouraging the settlement of such potential disputes", citing cases involving cease and desist letters. The Court responded that this case is distinguishable from those involving cease and desist letters. That is, the defendants "purposefully caused the cancellation of" the auction, rather than sending a simple cease and desist letter.

TLJ also spoke with the plaintiffs' counsel, Gregory Beck. He said that the plaintiffs offered to settle this case at the outset, and throughout the litigation. This included offering to cease sale of the fabrics that the defendants claim to be infringing.

The Court of Appeals offered this summation of its holding: "Defendants sent a NOCI to eBay expressly intending (and effectually acting) to suspend plaintiffs’ auction in Colorado. Plaintiffs’ suit arises from, and is indeed an effort to reverse, the intended consequences of defendants’ NOCI which they incurred in Colorado. For purposes of this motion, moreover, we must assume defendants knew plaintiffs’ business was located in Colorado. And defendants point us to no basis in traditional notions of fair play or substantial justice that would preclude suit in that forum. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." (Parentheses in original.)

Reaction. Beck stated that there is a problem of "frivolous claims" of copyright infringement being sent to eBay and others. He added that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) take down provision changed the playing field.

Beck stated said that copyright claimants "just have to allege infringement" and they can "get the equivalent of a temporary restraining order for free".

He also said that the defendants' notice of infringement in the present case is a "frivolous claim". "I think that it is a clear parody."

This case is Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors v. Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. and Sevenarts, Ltd., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-1458, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, D.C. No. 05-cv-02505-WDM-MEH.

Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges McConnell and Ebel joined.

Judge Gorsuch is a recent appointee of President Bush. He was previously Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Office of the Associate Attorney at the Department of Justice (DOJ). He was also a member of the DOJ's Intellectual Property Task Force. Before that, he was a partner in the Washington DC law firm of Kellogg Huber. He represented SBC and Qwest in antitrust and securities class action cases. Before that, he clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), and for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court.

1/29. The House approved by voice vote HR 5104 [LOC | WW], a bill to extend the effective term of the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days.

The PAA, which was enacted in August of 2007, temporarily expanded federal authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, stated that "even if we were unable to do this extension, and February 1 were to come and go without any new FISA legislation, no one should fall victim to those fear mongers who suggest that our intelligence community could `go dark.´"

He added that ""Even the Administration’s own Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Kenneth Wainstein, acknowledged this, saying that if the PAA were allowed to expire, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year."

However, expiration of the PAA would affect surveillance of new threats that develop after February 1.

The PAA is Public Law No. 110-55 and S 1927 [LOC | WW]. The PAA expires on February 1, 2008.

The House will meet at 10:30 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. It may consider HR 5104 [LOC | WW], a bill to extend the effective term of the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 days, and HR 5140 [LOC | WW], the "Economic Stimulus Package". See, Rep. Hoyers' schedule for the week of January 28.

TIME CHANGE. 10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will hold a hearing titled "Oversight Hearing on the States Secrets Privilege". The witnesses will be Patricia Wald (previously a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit), Patrick Philbin (Kirkland & Ellis), Kevin Bankston (Electcronic Frontier Foundation), Thomas Wells (ABA), and Judith Loether. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing on the nomination of Douglas Shulman to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Annual Seminar Committee will host a brown bag lunch. This event is free. Attendance may be restricted to FCBA members. For more information, contact Charla Rath at 202-589-3766. See, notice and registration page. Location: Harris Wiltshire & Grannis, 1200 18th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Rapidly Developing Pleadings Standards in Securities Cases". The speakers will be Larry Ellsworth (Jenner & Block), Daniel Sommers (Cohen Milstein), Mark Adler (Securities and Exchange Commission), and Howard Suskin (Jenner & Block). The price to attend ranges from $5 to $10. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

1:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Services in the Digital TV Age". The witnesses will be John O'Reilly (Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan), David Cohen (EVP of Comcast), Gail Torreano (President of AT&T Michigan), and Annie Folger (Executive Director of the Midpeninsula Community Media Center in Palo Alto, California). The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing titled "Full Committee Brief". Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will meet by conference call. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4132.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "Enforcement of Federal Espionage Laws". The witnesses will be Patrick Rowan (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ's National Security Division), David Major (Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies), and Larry Wortzel (Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission). See, notice. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.

The House will not meet. Day one of the three day House Democratic Retreat. See, Rep. Hoyers' schedule for the week of January 28.

8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a conference titled "State of the Net Conference". See, conference web site. The price to attend ranges from free to $350. For more information, contact Danielle Yates at dyates at netcaucus dot org or 202-638-4370. Location: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Technical Information Service's (NTIS) Advisory Board. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 245, at Pages 72678-72679. Location: Room 2029, Sills Building, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Doha's Death Knell, U.S. Agricultural Policy, and the Future of Free Trade". See, notice. There is no admission charge. Breakfast and lunch will be served. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice". The witness will be Attorney General Michael Mukasey. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

5:00 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host reception and technology demonstration. This event is free and open to the public. For more information, contact Danielle Yates at dyates at netcaucus dot org or 202-638-4370. Location: Room 902, Hart Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "How to Recognize Critical Software IP Issues in Everyday Practice". The speaker will be David Temeles (Bean Kinney & Korman). The price to attend ranges from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

The House will not meet. Day two of the three day House Democratic Retreat. See, Rep. Hoyers' schedule for the week of January 28.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Anti-Spyware Coalition will host a public workshop titled "Spyware: What's Worked, What's Left, and What's Coming". See, notice. The price to attend ranges from free to $250. Location: Capitol Hill Hyatt Regency.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Technical Information Service's (NTIS) Advisory Board. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 245, at Pages 72678-72679. Location: Room 2029, Sills Building, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 1638 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007", S 352 [LOC | WW], the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007", and S 2450 [LOC | WW], a bill to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. The agenda also includes consideration of Mark Filip to be the Deputy Attorney General. The SJC rarely follows its published agenda. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for advice for the U.S. on positions for the February 2008 meeting of the Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-D). See, notice in the Federal Register, December 19, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 243, at Page 71992. Location: DOS Main, Room 5804, 2201 C St., NW.

Deadline for eligible low power television broadcast stations, Class A television stations, television translator stations, and television booster stations to submit to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) priority applications for the Low-Power Digital Conversion Program. See, notice in the Federal Register: October 29, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 208, at Pages 61109-61114.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-53A [396 pages in PDF] titled "Draft Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems".

The House will not meet. Day three of the three day House Democratic Retreat. See, Rep. Hoyers' schedule for the week of January 28.

Expiration of the temporary amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted by S 1927 [LOC | WW], the "Protect America Act".

Deadline to submit written comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to assist the USITC in preparing a report for the House Ways and Means Committee regarding government policies affecting trade with the People's Republic of China (PRC). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 146, at Pages 41773-41774.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 186-3 [122 pages in PDF] titled "Digital Signature Standard" or DSS.

Starting date for eligible low power television broadcast stations, Class A television stations, television translator stations, and television booster stations to submit to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) non-priority applications for the Low-Power Digital Conversion Program. See, notice in the Federal Register: October 29, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 208, at Pages 61109-61114.

Effective date of the Department of State's (DOS) final rule regarding the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology in passport cards. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 31, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 249, at Pages 74169-74173. See also, story titled "Department of State Adopts Rules for Vicinity RFID Passport Cards" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,695, January 4, 2008.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Poweroasis v. T-Mobile, a patent infringement case, App. Ct. No. 2007-1265, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DNH), D.C. No. 1:2005cv00042. The Court of Appeals will also hear oral argument in and Poweroasis v. Wayport, App. Ct. No. 2007-1369. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Symantec v. Computer Associates, a patent infringement case, App. Ct. No. 2007-1201. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Battle for Cyberspace: Blogging and Dissidence in the Middle East". The speakers will be Mohammed Ali (Iraq the Model), Tony Badran (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies), Arash Sigarchi (Panjereh Eltehab), Hassan Mneimneh (Iraq Memory Foundation), and Michael Rubin (AEI). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) advisory committee titled "Joint Advisory Committee on Communications Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public Health Care Facilities" to submit their report to the Congress "on the communications capabilities and needs of emergency medical and public health care facilities and the options to accommodate growth of communications services and to improve integration of communications systems used by such facilities". See, notice in the Federal Register, September 7, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 173, at Page 51418.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding allowing AM stations to use FM translator stations to rebroadcast the AM signal locally. This NPRM is FCC 07-144 in MB Docket No. 07-172. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 6, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 214, at Pages 62616-62622.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the establishment of a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). This NPRM, which was adopted and released on December 14, 2007, is FCC 07-214 in PSHSB Docket No. 07-287. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 3, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 2, at Pages 545-607. The relevant FCC proceeding is numbered CG Docket No. 03-123.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Hawk Relay's petition for clarification regarding the Deaf Blind Relay Service (DBRS). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 3, at Pages 863-864. The relevant FCC proceeding is numbered CG Docket No. 03-123.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 15, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 10, at Page 2458-2459. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Golden Bridge Tech v. Nokia, a patent infringement case, App. Ct. No. 2007-1215, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDTex), D.C. No. 2:05-cv-151. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Prism Technologies v. Verisign, a patent infringement case involving hardware keys for authentication over networks, App. Ct. No. 2007-1315. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel), D.C. No. CA 05-214-JJF. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Nazomi Communications v. ARM, a patent infringement case, App. Ct. No. 2007-1190. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee will meet to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the April 2008 meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL)
Permanent Consultative Committee II (Radiocommunication including broadcasting) (PCC.II) and on various matters associated with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 16, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 11, at Page 2978. Location: Room 6B516, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th St.,  SW.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will meet by conference call. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4132.

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 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.