4/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [33 pages in PDF] in North American Medical Corporation v. Axiom Worldwide, a trademark infringement case involving the use of meta tags in the source code of web pages.

Summary. The District Court held that when a product manufacturer holds trademarks for its product names, and a competing manufacturer uses those trademarked terms in the meta tags of its web site, this can constitute trademark infringement. It held that in this case the defendants infringed trademarks.

The District Court also granted a preliminary injunction based upon a presumption, rather than a showing, of irreparable harm.

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court as its finding of trademark infringement, but overturned the preliminary injunction.

It remanded the case to the District Court to consider the Supreme Court's May 15, 2006, opinion [12 pages in PDF] in eBay v. MercExchange, which held that the traditional four factor framework that guides a court's decision whether to grant an injunction applies in patent cases.

See, story titled "Supreme Court Rules on Availability of Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,371, May 16, 2006.

Background. North American Medical Corporation (NAM) makes physiotherapeutic spinal devices to treat lower back pain. Moreover, it has registered trademarks for the names of two of its products. Adagen Medical International, Inc. distributes what NAM makes.

Axiom Worldwide, Inc., makes a product that competes with NAM's products. Axiom also operates a web site. It included NAM's trademarked product names in the meta tags in the source code of it web pages.

The Court of Appeals wrote this description. "Meta tags consist of words and phrases that are intended to describe the contents of a website. These descriptions are embedded within the website’s computer code. Although websites do not display their meta tags to visitors, Internet search engines utilize meta tags in various ways. First, when a computer user enters particular terms into an Internet search engine, the engine may rank a webpage that contains the search terms within its meta tags higher in the list of relevant results. Second, when a particular webpage is listed as a relevant search result, the search engine may use the meta tags to provide the searcher a brief description of the webpage."

To view an example of meta tags (using Microsoft's browser) visit the Tech Law Journal home page, right click with the mouse, select "View Source", and a window will appear that contains the source code of the page. Meta tags are near the top of the page. Two relevant meta tags are as follows:

<meta name="keywords" content="Tech, Law, Journal, home, page, computer, internet, industry, legislation, litigation, regulation, Washington, DC, news, stories, coverage, article">

<meta name="description" content="Tech Law Journal Home Page: news, documents, and analysis about legislation, regulation, and litigation affecting the computer and Internet industry.">

NAM and Adagen filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDGa) against Axiom and two of its officers alleging trademark infringement and false advertising. They also sought injunctive relief.

Axiom stopped using NAM's trademarks in its meta tags. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of NAM and Adagen, prohibiting Axiom from using NAM’s trademarks within meta tags.

Also, separately from the meta tag issue, the District Court enjoined Axiom from making false statements about its own product. (Since that false advertising claim is not technology related, it is not discussed further in this article.)

Axiom brought the present appeal.

Statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) provides, in part, that "(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant ..."

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding of trademark infringement, but vacated the injunction, and remanded to the District Court with instruction to consider eBay v. MercExchange.

The Court of Appeals quoted the 11th Circuit standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction: "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying case, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the harm suffered by the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued, and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest."

Axiom argued that meta tags are not "use in commerce" within the meaning of Section 1114, and that there was no likelihood of confusion.

The Court of Appeals concluded that "Because Axiom’s use of NAM’s trademarks constitutes a ``use in commerce´´ in connection with the advertisement of goods, and because the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that a likelihood of confusion exists, NAM and Adagen demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their trademark infringement claims."

It wrote that "we readily conclude that the facts of the instant case do involve a ``use´´ as contemplated in the Lanham Act – that is, a use in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods. ... The facts of the instant case are absolutely clear that Axiom used NAM’s two trademarks as meta tags as part of its effort to promote and advertise its products on the Internet. Under the plain meaning of the language of the statute, such use constitutes a use in commerce in connection with the advertising of any goods."

Axiom also relied upon the 2nd Circuit's 2005 opinion [PDF] in 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400. However, the Court of Appeals distinguished that case on the grounds that it involved use of unprotected domain names, rather than protected trademarks. It also added that the 2nd Circuit's "analysis is questionable".

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court's finding of likelihood of confusion. It noted that the evidence showed that if an internet user entered the trademarked terms for NAM's products into a Google search, then Google produced as the second result a listing and description of Axiom's web page, with the two trademarked terms.

The Court of Appeals elaborated that "Consumers viewing these search results would be led to believe that Axiom’s products have the same source as the products of the owner of the ... trademarks, or at least that Axiom distributed or sold all of the products to which the brief description referred, or that Axiom was otherwise related to NAM. This, of course, is misleading to the consumer because Axiom is not related in any way to NAM, nor does Axiom distribute or sell the products of NAM."

However, the Court of Appeals held that NAM failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. The District Court presumed irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals vacated the preliminary injunction.

The Court of Appeals wrote that while "our prior cases do extend a presumption of irreparable harm once a plaintiff establishes a likelihood of success on the merits of a trademark infringement claim", the Supreme Court's opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange "calls into question" this line of cases.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "Although eBay dealt with the Patent Act and with permanent injunctive relief, a strong case can be made that eBay’s holding necessarily extends to the grant of preliminary injunctions under the Lanham Act."

Hence, "we conclude that the Supreme Court’s eBay case is applicable to the instant case." But, it then qualified this conclusion.

"However, we decline to express any further opinion with respect to the effect of eBay on this case", the Court of Appeals added. "For example, we decline to decide whether the district court was correct in its holding that the nature of the trademark infringement gives rise to a presumption of irreparable injury. In other words, we decline to address whether such a presumption is the equivalent of the categorical rules rejected by the Court in eBay."

It explained. "We decline to address such issues for several reasons. First, the briefing on appeal has been entirely inadequate in this regard. Second, the district court has not addressed the effect of eBay. Finally, the district court may well conclude on remand that it can readily reach an appropriate decision by fully applying eBay without the benefit of a presumption of irreparable injury, or it may well decide that the particular circumstances of the instant case bear substantial parallels to previous cases such that a presumption of irreparable injury is an appropriate exercise of its discretion in light of the historical traditions."

This case is North American Medical Corporation, et al. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

4/7. Various entities filed amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) in In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw, an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), regarding patentable subject matter.

The BPAI's September 26, 2006, opinion [71 pages in PDF] affirmed the rejection of a claim for an invention that discloses a method of doing business, and not a tangible physical thing, on that grounds that it is not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 provides, in full, that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

The Federal Circuit's 1998 opinion in State Street Bank and 1999 opinion in AT&T v. Excel Communications held that business methods can be patentable subject matter.

The BPAI described the claim:

"The invention relates to a method practices by a commodity provider for managing (i.e., hedging) the consumption risks associated with a commodity sold at a fixed price. It is disclosed that energy consumers face two kinds of risk: price risk and consumption risk (specification, p. 1). The proliferation of price risk management tools over the last 5 years before the filing date allows easy management of price risk (specification, p. 2). However, consumption risk (e.g., the need to use more or less energy than planned due to the weather) is said to be not currently managed in energy markets, which is the problem addressed by the invention (specification, p. 2)." (Parentheses in original.)

Claim 1 discloses:

"A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:
  (a) initializing a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer:
  (b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers: and
  (c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions."

The Federal Circuit requested in its February 15, 2008, order [2 pages in PDF] that parties brief the following issues for the Court's en banc review:

(1) Whether claim 1 of the 08/833,892 patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

(2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

(4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

Amicus briefs were due by April 7, 2008. Supplemental briefs of the parties were due by March 6, 2008. Oral argument is scheduled for 2:00 PM on May 8, 2008, in Courtroom 201.

The USPTO filed its en banc supplemental brief [PDF] on March 9, 2008, and the appellants filed their en banc supplemental brief [PDF] on March 6, 2008.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed its amicus curiae brief [39 pages in PDF] on April 7, 2008, arguing that "this century is primed for the development of the Information Era. Operations that were performed on room-sized machines now are done on home computers. Hand-cranked mechanical computations are now performed on integrated circuit chips smaller than a fingernail. Frequently, there is no longer a physical structure responsible for these operations. One might describe them as ethereal or transient, effected by software in networks. Yet, this is the direction of today’s innovation."

"At the turn of the Twentieth Century, patent examiners had no idea what to do with many of the new electro-mechanical inventions arriving on their desks. Innovations such as the telephone were at first declared unpatentable subject matter. Similarly, and until recently, the PTO treated software and internet related applications in much the same way." (Footnote omitted.)

It continued that "Concerns that an invention is ``overbroad´´ or even preposterous should be addressed substantively under section 112, then under sections 102 and 103. Of course this approach to examination requires more work than merely barring the door with subject matter exclusions. But it is the only approach that stands true to constitutional and congressional intent."

The AIPLA wrote that "In the Information Era, as technology again ventures from the recognized into the unknown, under the time-tested mandates of the Constitution, innovation should be no less protectable than in previous eras of transition. "

It argued against overturning either State Street Bank or AT&T v. Excel Communications.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed an amicus curiae brief [44 pages in PDF] on April 7, 2008.

It argues that the holding of the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank should be "reconsidered and rejected". It argues that State Street Bank "upends the historically and constitutional limitation of patents to the technological arts" and has caused an "explosive spread of patents" that has "made a public spectacle of the patent system".

The CCIA also argued that AT&T. v. Excel Communications should be overturned. See also, CCIA release.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus curiae brief [22 pages in PDF] in which it wrote that "The patent claim in this case consists predominantly of speech and/or thought. The applicant's patent cannot be granted without violating the First Amendment. Existing patent doctrines, such as the abstract idea doctrine, can be interpreted to avoid the First Amendment issues. However, if the Court finds the patent can be granted despite those patent doctrines, it must necessarily reach the First Amendment issues. If it does so, it must find the patent valid." See also, ACLU release.

The Intellectual Property Owners Association wrote in its amicus curiae brief [PDF], filed on April 7, 2008, that "the proper, and long-standing, standard for determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is whether it is tied to a particular apparatus or operates to transform matter of any form into a different state or thing."

It added that both State Street Bank and AT&T v. Excel Communications "are consistent with that principle", but that the Federal Circuit should "clarify that those decisions did not depart from the historic standard for determining whether a process is patent eligible subject matter."

Bilski & Warsaw is represented by the The Webb Law Firm of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. See, Webb's web page with hyperlinks to its briefs, and earlier briefs in this case.

This case is In re Bernand Bilski and Rand Warsaw, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2007-1130, an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

4/4. Verizon Wireless announced in a release, and AT&T announced in a release, in vague terms, their plans for use of spectrum that they will acquire as a result of their winning bids in the recently closed Auction No. 73, the 700 MHz auction. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) anti-collusion rules prohibited such disclose until April 3, 2008.

VW stated that it will use this spectrum "to capture the full potential of its announced plan to deploy a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network and Open Development Initiative".

VW will acquire C Block spectrum for all states, except Alaska. This spectrum is subject to the FCC's open devices and applications requirements (ODAR). It also acquired 102 licenses in the A and B Blocks.

It added that it plans "to launch its LTE network in the 700 MHz spectrum in the 2010 timeframe". It added that "the breadth of the national C-block spectrum footprint, all in a single band and with a depth of 22 MHz, provides a speed and performance advantage that will be ideal for connecting a variety of consumer electronics, from wireless phones to medical devices to gaming consoles. In addition, the 102 individual licenses in the A and B-blocks provide additional growth capacity in key markets."

VW also stated that this will increase its "average spectrum depth per market to 82 MHz, from 52 MHz today."

AT&T announced that its "spectrum holdings position the company to further enhance the quality and reliability of existing wireless broadband and voice services that consumers are demanding, and set the foundation for more customer choices for new, more advanced wireless broadband technologies and services."

It acquired B Block spectrum in the 700 MHz auction.

It elaborated that "The complementary nature of the spectrum AT&T acquired through the FCC auction and from Aloha Partners gives AT&T the capacity to meet customer needs as the company moves to higher-speed 4G (fourth-generation) services. Upon final award of the auctioned B Block spectrum, AT&T's 700 MHz spectrum will cover 100 percent of the top 200 markets and 87 percent of the U.S. population".

It added that "With fewer costly and complex regulations, we have the certainty and flexibility needed to move faster in rolling out new mobile technology".

See also, story titled "FCC Releases Details of 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,735, March 24, 2008, and story titled "FCC Closes 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour debate, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7.

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 3221 [LOC | WW], the "Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007".

8:00 AM. Eric Solomon (Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury) will give a speech titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy" at the conference titled "Tax Executives Institute 58th Midyear Conference". Location: Grand Hyatt, 1000 H St., NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will meet. The agenda includes, among other items, a panel on "approaches and barriers to research partnerships among universities and the private sector" and a "briefing on the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators developed by the National Science Board". See, notice in the Federal Register, March 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 58, at Pages 15755-15756. Location: Room 100, Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 5th St., NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DC) will hear oral argument in Comcast v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 07-1445. This is Comcast's petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) [20 pages in PDF] released on September 4, 2007, denying Comcast's request for a waiver of the integration ban for set top boxes. See, story titled FCC Denies Comcast's Request for Waiver of Integration Ban in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,636, September 7, 2007. This MO&O is FCC 07-127 in CS Docket No. 97-80. See also, FCC brief [103 pages in PDF]. Judges Ginsburg, Griffith and Silberman will preside. This is the first of three cases on the agenda. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization". The witnesses will be the five Commissioners of the FTC. See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Cygnus Telecom v. Telesys Communications, App. Ct. No. 2007-1328, and Cygnus Telecom v. AT&T, App. Ct. No. 2007-1023. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Luma v. Stryker, App. Ct. No. 2007-1353, a patent infringement case involving endoscopy medical devices -- Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Jang v. Boston Scientific, App. Ct. No. 2007-1385, a patent case involving stent technology. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ricoh v. Quanta Computer, App. Ct. No. 2007-1567. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The President's Export Council (PEC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 49, at Page 13208. Location: Department of Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 10, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 47, at Page 12747. Location?

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare advice on submission of contributions to CITEL PCC.II. (This is the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunication Commission's (CITEL) Permanent Consultative Committee II (PCC.II). See, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Page 10854. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the DTV Transition". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host part two of a two part program titled "Preserving Intellectual Property Rights in Government Contracts Series: A Beginner's Guide". The price to attend ranges from $80 to $115. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a lecture by Bill Hefley, editor of the book [Amazon] titled "Service Science, Management and Engineering: Education for the 21st Century". This event is free and open to the public. Coffee and pastries will be served. See, notice and registration page. Location: ITIF, Suite 200, 1250 Eye St., NW.

9:30 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science will hold a hearing on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Financial Services will hold a hearing on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Location: Room 2220, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Tip Systems v. Phillips & Brooks, App. Ct. No. 2007-1241, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (SDTex) in a patent infringement case regarding cord free phones. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in EI DuPont v. Macdermid, App. Ct. No. 2007-1568, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel) in a patent infringement involving digitally imaged flexographic printing elements. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Johns Hopkins v. Datascope, App. Ct. No. 2007-1530, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DMd) in a patent infringement involving catheter systems. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Innovation Technologies v. Splash Medical, App. Ct. No. 2007-1424. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science will hold a hearing on the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA). Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.

6:00 - 9:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "50th Anniversary Celebration: BADC Patent Trademark & Copyright Section". For more information, contact MaryEva Candon at 202-223-5447. The price to attend ranges from $75 to $100. See, notice. Location: Dolley Madison House, U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1520 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its proposal to revise its rules of practice pertaining to any claim using alternative language to claim two or more independent and distinct inventions (Alternative Claims Notice of Proposed Rule Making). This is also the deadline to submit comments regarding the USPTO's initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) on this proposed change to the rules of practice. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 10, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 47, at Pages 12679-12684.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may hold an event titled "Open Commission Meeting". See, tentative agenda [4 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "FCC Releases Agenda for April 10 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,741, April 2, 2008. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing titled "American Decline or Renewal?: Globalizing Jobs or Technology". Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Identity Theft: Who’s Got Your Number?". The witnesses will include Douglas Shulman (IRS Commissioner). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's (OGC) Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing titled "Investigation into the Sale of Sensitive, In-Demand Military Equipment and Supplies on the Internet". Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Phantom Traffic". The SCC notice states that this hearing "will examine concerns regarding traffic over telephone networks that is sent without identifying information used for intercarrier billing purposes". Location Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a closed hearing titled "Cybersecurity Initiative". See, notice. Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Is Free Trade Good for Your Health?". The speakers will be Ann Owen (Hamilton College), Paul Wolfowitz (AEI), Jeremy Norris (Hudson Institute), and Roger Bate (AEI). See, notice. The event is free and open to the public. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The hearing will be webcast by the HAC. Location: Room 2220, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Southwestern Bell v. Arthur Collins, App. Ct. No. 2007-1577. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:30 PM. Eric Solomon (Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury) will give a speech titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy" at an ALI/ABA event. Location: Hilton Embassy Row, 2015 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a program titled "Wireless Technologies: An Overview and Policy Discussion on What's Current and What’s Next". This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on April 8. See, registration form [PDF] and notice and online registration page. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, conference web site and brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, VA.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding a broadcast television substitution in Riverside, California. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 11, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 48, at Pages 12928-12929.

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 7 states that "no votes are expected in the House".

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Solomon Technologies v. ITC, App. Ct. No. 2007-1391, an appeal from the ITC's termination of an investigation regarding Solomon Technologies' complaint that Toyota infringed a patent regarding an electric wheel. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Buffalo Technologies, App. Ct. No. 2007-1449, a patent infringement case involving wireless communications technology. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

2:30 - 4:30 PM. The DC Bar Association and others will host a program titled "Wired in the Workplace: Challenges Posed by Electronic Communication Devices and New Media". This program is part of the 2008 Judicial & Bar Conference. See, notice. The price to attend is $50. For more information, contact Verniesa Allen at 202-626-3439. Location: Reagan International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, conference web site and brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, VA.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law titled "23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference". See, conference web site and brochure [PDF]. Location: Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, Arlington, VA.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Petition for Declaratory Ruling [33 pages in PDF] filed by the Public Knowledge (PK) and other groups on December 11, 2007, pertaining to the regulatory status of text messaging services, including short code based services sent from and received by mobile phones. The PK requests that the FCC declare that these services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act. See, story titled "Verizon Wireless and Net Neutrality Advocates Clash Over Text Messaging" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,647, September 27, 2007. See also, letter from Verizon Wireless to NARAL dated September 27, 2007, and NARAL's web page titled "NARAL Pro-Choice America Wins Fight over Corporate Censorship". See also, story titled "Public Knowledge Asks FCC to Declare that Blocking and Refusing to Carry Text Messages Violates Title II" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,686, December 11, 2007. This proceeding is WT Docket No. 08-7. See, original notice in the Federal Register, January 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 18, at Pages 4866-4867. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-282), and second notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Pages 10775-10776.

EXTENDED TO JUNE 11. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on January 24, 2008. It is FCC 07-218 in MB Docket No. 04-233. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 30, at Pages 8255-8259. See also, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-393). See also, Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-515) extending deadlines.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding leased commercial access. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 27, 2007, and released the text on February 1, 2008. This NPRM is FCC 07-208 in MB Docket No. 07-42. See, story titled "FCC Adopts R&O and FNPRM Regarding Commercial Leased Access" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,680, November 30, 2007. See also, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, Pages 10732-10738.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding cable and broadcast attribution rules. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on February 11, 2008. It is FCC 07-219 in MM Docket No. 92-264. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 27, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 39, at Pages 10411-10415.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission -- the 700 MHz Auction". This hearing will be webcast by the HCC. See also, story titled "Rep. Markey Announces Hearing on 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

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.