3/20. The Supreme Court of the US issued its unanimous opinion [28 pages in PDF] in Mayo v. Prometheus, a patent case regarding whether certain processes used by doctors are patentable subject matter.

The Supreme Court held that the claims at issue in the patents in suit cover processes that merely apply laws of nature that are not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act.

The underlying patents do not involve information or communications technology (ICT). They involve medical procedure. However, the reasoning of the Supreme Court regarding why the claimed inventions are not patentable subject matter will also be applicable to certain ICT related claims. This opinion, along with the 2010 opinion [71 pages in PDF] in Bilski v. Kappos, impact and limit what is patentable in the context of software. See, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Bilski" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,113, July 28, 2010.

35 U.S.C. § 101 provides only 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. There were no other opinions.

He wrote that this case "concerns patent claims covering processes that help doctors who use thiopurine drugs to treat patients with autoimmune diseases determine whether a given dosage level is too low or too high. The claims purport to apply natural laws describing the relationships between the concentration in the blood of certain thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that the drug dosage will be ineffective or induce harmful side-effects. We must determine whether the claimed processes have transformed these unpatentable natural laws into patent eligible applications of those laws. We conclude that they have not done so and that therefore the processes are not patentable."

He wrote that "the steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries." (Parentheses in original.)

Prometheus is the licensee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,355,623 and 6,680,302. It sells diagnostic tests that embody the processes the patents describe. It is the plaintiff in the District Court, appellant in the Court of Appeals, and respondent in the Supreme Court.

Mayo announced that it intended to begin using and selling its own test. Prometheus filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDCal) alleging patent infringement. The District Court found infringement, but then granted summary judgment to Mayo. It reasoned that the patents effectively claim natural laws or natural phenomena, and are therefore not patentable.

Prometheus appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), which reversed the judgment of the District Court. Mayo then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Bilski.

On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the judgment of the District Court. See, Court of Appeals' December 17, 2010, opinion. Mayo then filed another petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.

The Supreme Court, in its just released opinion, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The claims are not patentable subject matter.

Justice Breyer wrote that "Prometheus' patents set forth laws of nature -- namely, relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm."

He did not discuss software in this opinion. However, it might be noted that some software patents claim, for example, the application an algorithm to accomplish something useful. An algorithm is a law of nature. Hence, the reasoning of the court in this opinion might be applied to challenge some software patent claims. Although, Justice Breyer did not elaborate on this.

This case attracted a large number of amicus curiae briefs. Some came from ICT companies and intellectual property associations with concerns regarding the application of patent law to the tech sector.

For example, Microsoft and Intel submitted a joint amicus curiae brief. They argued that "The now-prevailing mode of Section 101 analysis that allows courts and the PTO to parse claims into the ``underlying invention´´ and ``extra-solution´´ elements based on inherently subjective evaluations of ``significance,´´ misplaced assessments of novelty, or both, is incompatible both with the statutory text and Congress’s expressed intention. The Court, therefore, should reject that analytical framework. Instead, it should reaffirm the historical standard for patent eligibility of process inventions dating back to O’Reilly v. Morse and hold that a process invention is eligible for patenting if it uses ``certain means´´ to create ``a certain useful result.´´"

Verizon and Hewlett Packard filed a joint amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner, Mayo, in which they argued that Section 101 should be construed to "ensure that patents are limited to concrete structures or processes that are new and useful and that are described and claimed properly. Insisting that patents be circumscribed by these requirements presupposes, at the threshold, that merely adding a recognition of a new property to an old process or product does not create a newly patentable invention."

These are all large incumbent companies. On the other hand, some amicus briefs filed on behalf of start ups and venture capitalists argued in support of the respondent, and affirming the Federal Circuit. See for example, National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) brief and San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association brief.

The Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Reason Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mayo in which they argued broadly that patentability law is out of joint, particularly in the context of software patents, and that the Court should use this case to set it right.

They wrote that "Prometheus's patents are two among thousands of abstract process patents which have been improvidently granted since the 1990s. The patents at issue present an opportunity for the Court to restore the original meaning of patentable ``process´´ and reverse an expansion of patentable subject matter that has discouraged innovation and harmed U.S. industries."

They warned that if the Federal Circuit is affirmed, "The effect of abstract process patents on software and financial firms will spread to the healthcare and medical research industries if patents such as Prometheus's are permitted."

They argued that "The term ``process´´ in section 101 is properly limited to processes which aim to have an effect on matter. Although software and business method patents have proliferated over the past two decades, many software and business-method patents, as well as the patents at issue here, should not qualify as patentable subject matter because the purpose of performing the processes is not to have an effect on the physical world."

They argue that something is rotten in the Federal Circuit's expansive interpretation of patentable subject matter. It has had "a net negative economic effect in most industries". It has raised litigation costs to the point that they have "overwhelmed the profits generated from those patents." The state of the law has created an "arms race" in which companies like Google, Microsoft and Apple spend billions to build up their portfolios, and where "Small firms that can't keep up may be run out of business".

Cato's Timothy Lee stated in a release after the opinion that "we would have liked to see Justice Breyer go further". He added that "Mayo v. Prometheus was a step in the right direction, but it was also a missed opportunity to rule on these broader questions".

See, ABA web page with hyperlinks to briefs of parties and amici curaie.

This case is Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, Sup. Ct. No. 10-1150, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2008-1403. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. 04-CV-1200.

3/29. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hosted a gathering regarding e-books, the e-rate, and related issues.

Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a brief speech about the "digital textbook ecosystem". He said nothing about the activities or operations of the FCC, other than to praise the FCC and its e-rate subsidy program for schools.

The FCC's e-rate tax and subsidy programs bear a slight resemblance to a program described at 47 U.S.C. § 254.

Subsection 254(h) provides for telecommunications carriers to subsidize telecommunications services at elementary and secondary schools, libraries, and health clinics. As implemented by the FCC in 1997 and 1998, subsidies were provided for telephone service, internet access, and internal connections.

More recently, the FCC has further expanded in several respects, most notably to subsidize broadband internet access service, and to use e-rate subsidized school facilities to provide internet access to persons not associated with the schools.

See, story titled "FCC Expands E-Rate Program to Cover Non-Educational Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,047, February 18, 2010.

The FCC also issued a release that states that the FCC has a "pilot program" that "will help the FCC learn how best to support wireless connectivity services for mobile learning devices, like digital textbooks, so that students and patrons can connect with online resources even when they're not in school or at a library".

This release also states that there would be "a savings of $250 per student each year if schools move to digital textbooks". See also, FCC's second release that elaborates on cost estimates.

The FCC also released a set of colorful presentation slides regarding planning a transition from print on paper books to interactive digital books. It states "Government agencies and others actively working to ensure access and affordability" and "Adoption of Common Core standards".

The FCC has not adopted or proposed any rules that would expand the e-rate program to subsidize acquisition of e-book or e-readers, set e-book technology mandates, require rights holders to publish in digital format, or require schools or students to buy e-books.

However, there was a bill in the 111th Congress, HR 4619 [LOC | WW], the "E-Rate 2.0 Act of 2010", that would have expanded the e-rate program to include subsidization of e-books and perhaps e-book readers. It was drafted with calculated obfuscation. See, story titled "Rep. Markey Introduces Sweeping E-Rate and E-Books Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,043, February 12, 2010.

That bill was referred to the House Commerce Committee (HCC) and its Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. It received no hearing, no mark up, and little attention.

3/26. The Wall Street Journal published a story on March 26, 2012, by Thomas Catan titled " Trust Buster Takes Hard Line As E-Book Probe Continues".

This WSJ story states that Sharis Pozen, the acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division "says she won't stand by quietly if companies make agreements with rivals on price, signaling a stern stance as the department conducts a high-profile probe into electronic-book publishing".

Pozen is scheduled to speak at an event at the DOJ main building on Friday, March 31.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it approved the nomination of Richard Taranto to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) by voice vote. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) voted no.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it held over the nomination William Kayatta to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir). His nomination is again on the agenda for the SJC's next meeting on April 19, 2012.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it approved the nomination of Gershwin Drain to be a Judge for the U.S. District Court (EDMich) by a vote of 10-8. Opposition to his appointment is based largely upon his opposition to the death penalty, opposition to mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases, and opposition to the right to keep and bear arms.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it approved the nomination of Robin Rosenbaum to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (SDFl) by voice vote.

3/29. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it held over the nominations of John Fowlkes (USDC/WDTenn), Kevin McNulty (USDC/DNJ), Michael Shipp (USDC/DNJ), and Stephanie Rose (USDC/SDIowa). All are again on the agenda for the SJC's next meeting on April 19, 2012.

3/29. EBay announced in a release that David Marcus will become the President of its PayPal Division on April 2, 2012. He will replace Scott Thompson, who went to Yahoo in January.

3/29. Research in Motion (RIM), maker of Blackberry, announced that Jim Rowan (COO) and David Yach (CTO) will leave the company. Jim Balsillie, a Director, and former CEO, will also leave. RIM announced in release its fourth quarter results for the three months and fiscal year ended March 3, 2012. It stated that the "net loss for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 was $125 million". Thorsten Heins, who has been CEO since January, remains.

3/29. The New America Foundation (NAF) named James Vasile head of its Open Technology Initiative's Open Internet Tools Project (OITP). See, NAF release. His prior employment includes working for the law firm of Cravath Swaine & Moore. The NAF offers this explanation of the OITP: it is a "collection of open source projects that help build a truly unfettered internet -- private, anonymous and resistant to control. The projects enhance existing infrastructure, working to enable and protect communication, even in the face of active attempts to suppress it." It adds that to be included in the OITP a proposed project "should focus on ... Access to content blocked or censored by ISPs, governments, or others ... Wireless connectivity where physical connections are cut ... Anonymous communications ... Secure or encrypted communications ... " or "Intranet communications or intermodal bridging".

3/29. Yahoo announced its implementation of a do not track (DNT) header solution. It stated in a release that this "will be accessible across Yahoo!'s global network by early summer. Yahoo!'s DNT header solution has been in development since last year and is in accordance with the Digital Advertising Alliance's (DAA) principles. This site-wide DNT mechanism (to include Yahoo! owned Right Media and interclick) will provide a simple step for consumers to express their ad targeting preferences to Yahoo!". (Parentheses in original.)

3/26. Hewlett Packard (HP) issued a release regarding its ongoing lawsuit against Oracle regarding Intel's Itanium platform. HP stated that it filed "two motions for summary adjudication and summary judgment". It also stated that "The information brought to light during the discovery period further underscores the key facts of this case. In fact, it has led HP to seek a pretrial ruling that Oracle is contractually obligated to offer future versions of Oracle’s software on Itanium. It is time for Oracle to quit pursuing baseless accusations and honor its commitments to HP and to our shared customers." This case is HP v. Oracle, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, No. 1-11-CV-203163.

3/26. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion in T-Mobile v. Newport News, a case regarding denial of permission to build a wireless communication tower. T-Mobile filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (EDVa) alleging violation of  47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B). The District Court granted judgment to T-Mobile. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This case is T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City Council of Newport News, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 11-1293, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00082-RBS-TEM.

3/19. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion in Cingular Wireless v. Fairfax County, a case regarding denial of permission to build a wireless communication tower. Cingular, now AT&T, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (EDVa) alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B). The District Court granted judgment to Fairfax County. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This case is New Cingular Wireless v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 10-2381, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00283-LMB-TRJ.

3/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [45 pages in PDF] in Cingular Wireless v. Finley, an interconnection dispute. New Cingular Wireless (AT&T) and Alltel (Verizon Wireless) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (EDNC) against Edward Finley and other members of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) seeking review of several of its determinations. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and upheld the NCUC. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This case is New Cingular Wireless, et al. v. Edward Finley, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 10-2221 and 10-2243, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, D.C. No. 5:09-cv-00123-BR.

3/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its divided opinion [42 pages in PDF] in T-Mobile v. Fairfax County, a case regardingdenial of permission to build a wireless communication tower. T-Mobile filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (EDVa) alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B). The District Court granted judgment to Fairfax County. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Each member of the three judge panel wrote an opinion. This case is New Cingular Wireless v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 11-1060, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00117-GBL-JFA.

The House will meet at 11:00 AM. Rep. Cantor's schedule states that "no votes are expected in the House".

The Senate will not meet.

Supreme Court conference day. See, calendar. Closed.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day five of a five day event hosted by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), Department of Defense (DOD), and National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) titled "16th Semi-Annual Software Assurance (SwA) Forum". Free. Registration required. See, notice and agenda. Location: Mitre Corporation, Building MITRE-1, 7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA.

10:30 AM - 3:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) will meet. The seven EAAC subcommittees will present reports and consider activities for 2012. The seven subcommittees cover (1) Text-to-911 Solutions, (2) Interoperability Testing, (3) PSAP Sign Language and other Communications Assistance, (4) Detailed Report Sections from 2011, (5) Gaps in NENA i3 compared to EAAC Recommendations, (6) TTY Transition/Roadmap, and (7) Timeline Alignment For Phasing into NG911 PSAPs. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 60, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, Pages 18814-18815. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 13. 12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Robert McDowell will speak. Free. Brown bag lunch. The FCBA states that this is an FCBA event of its Young Lawyers Committee. Location: FCC, 8th floor South Conference Room, 445 12th St., SW.

2:30 PM. Joaquín Almunia (European Commission) will give a speech titled "Competition Policy for the Post Crisis Era". The other speakers will be Sharis Pozen (acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division), Edith Ramirez (FTC Commissioner), and John Shenefield (Morgan Lewis). Location: Great Hall, DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Possible date for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) to release its annual report titled "National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers".

Deadline to submit nominations for the National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 9 Friday, January 13, 2012, at Pages 2047-2048. For more information about this program, see stories titled "Bush Awards National Medals of Technology and Science", "House Democrats Promote Their Innovation Agenda", and "Commentary: National Medal of Technology Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,312, February 17, 2006.

The House will not meet on the week of Monday, April 2, through Friday, April 6, or on the week of Monday, April 9, through Friday, April 13, except for pro forma sessions.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM in pro forma session. The Senate will not meet on the week of Monday, April 2, through Friday, April 6, or on the week of Monday, April 9, through Friday, April 13, except for pro forma sessions.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in 1st Media v. Electronic Arts, App. Ct. No. 2011-1435. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 402.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Internet Caucus will host an event titled "The White House's Proposal For A Framework for Protecting Privacy: Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World". The speaker will be Daniel Weitzner (Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Internet Policy in the EOP's Office of Science and Technology Policy). Free. Register by contacting rsvp at netcaucus dot org or 202-407-8829. Lunch will be served. Location: Room HC-5, Capitol Building.

6:00 PM. Deadline to submit draft papers to the National Science Foundation (NSF) National Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) for its June 11, 2012, event titled "National Symposium on Moving Target Research". The purpose of this symposium is to examine whether there is scientific evidence to show that moving target techniques are a substantial improvement in the defense of cyber systems. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 45, Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at Page 13656.

Deadline to submit requests to testify at any of the Copyright Office's (CO) hearings regarding its triennial review of exemptions to the anticircumvention provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 1201. These hearing will be on May 11 in Washington DC, May 17 and 18 in Los Angeles, and May 31, June1, and June 4-6 in Washington DC. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 51, Thursday, March 15, 2012, at Pages 15327-15329. Location: CO, Copyright Hearing Room, LM-408, James Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) [339 pages in PDF] regarding it Lifeline and Link Up universal service tax and subsidy programs. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on January 31, 2012 and released the text on February 6, 2012. It is FCC 12-11 in WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, and 12-23, and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 42, Friday, March 2, 2012, at Pages 12784-12791.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to NextG Networks of California, Inc.'s December 21, 2011, Petition for Declaratory Ruling (part 1 and part 2) regarding whether it is a "commercial mobile radio service" or "CMRS" within the meaning of the FCC's rules. See, FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's (WTB) February 16, 2012 Public Notice (DA 12-202 in WT Docket No. 12-37). See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 39, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at Pages 12055-12056. And see, NextG Networks web site.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the information collection burdens imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in connection with implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 42, Friday, March 2, 2012, at Pages 12837-12839.

EXTENDED FROM MARCH 26. 5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its request for comments in its wide ranging private sector data privacy inquiry. The NTIA seeks comments regarding "substantive consumer data privacy issues that warrant the development of legally enforceable codes of conduct, as well as procedures to foster the development of these codes". See, original notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 43, Monday, March 5, 2012, at Pages 13098-13101, and extension notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 58, Monday, March 26, 2012, at Page 17460.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Personalized Media Communications v. Scientific Atlanta, App. Ct. No. 2011-1466. Panel D+. Location: Courtroom 402.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski will host a webcast panel discussion titled "The Latest on the ADA: A Review of the Final Regulations on Their One-Year Anniversary and Recent Noteworthy Court Decisions". The speakers will be Laurie Vasichek (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), Jennifer Mathis (Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law), Jeff Wray (F&J) and Barbara D'Aquila (F&J). CLE credits. See, notice and registration page.

3:00 - 5:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "International Trade Law & Policy Debate". The topics to be covered include US PRC relations. The speakers will be Gary Horlick (solo practice) and Paul Rosenthal (Kelley Drye & Warren). The price to attend ranges from $5 to $15. No CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3463. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E St., SW.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Small and Minority Business (ITAC-11) will hold a partially closed meeting. The meeting will be open to the public from 9:00 - 10:30 AM. The committee will discuss the Small Business Administration (SBA) State Trade and Export Promotion Grants Process. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 47, Friday, March 9, 2012, at Page 14459. Location: Room 1412, Herbert C. Humphrey Building, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 52, Friday, March 16, 2012, at Pages 15760-15761. Location: Washington Marriott, 1221 22nd St., NW.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will host a webcast presentation titled "ITC Proceedings and Beyond". The speakers will be James Altman (Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel) and Bert Reiser (Latham & Watkins). CLE credits. CD, MP4 download, archived webcast, and other formats available. Prices vary. See, registration page.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding the consent agreement in its administrative proceeding titled "In the Matter of Western Digital Corporation", regarding Western Digital's proposed acquisition of Viviti Technologies Ltd., formerly known as Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Ltd. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 48, Monday, March 12, 2012, at Pages 14523-14525. See also, Complaint, Decision and Order, and FTC web page with hyperlinks to other documents. This proceeding is FTC Docket No. C-4350.

8:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 53, Monday, March 19, 2012, at Page 16076, and forthcoming correction notice. Location: NSF, Room 1235, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 5:15 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Science Advisory Board (SAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 53, Monday, March 19, 2012, at Pages 15996-15997. Location: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW.

9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting to the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the scope of which includes computer science. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 57, Friday, March 23, 2012, at Page 17102. Location: Room 1235, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Picture Patents v. Aeropostale, App. Ct. No. 2011-1558. Panel J. Location: Courtroom 203.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGAB) regarding whether certain docketed FCC proceedings should be terminated as dormant. See, February 15, 2012, Public Notice (DA 12-220 in CG Docket No. 12-39), and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 44, Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at Pages 13322-13323.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding jurisdictional separations, the process by which incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. The FCC once again proposes to extend the current freeze, through June 30, 2014. This item is FCC 12-27 in CC Docket No. 80-286. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 56, Thursday, March 22, 2012, at Pages 16900-16902.

Good Friday.

Passover begins at sundown.

8:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 53, Monday, March 19, 2012, at Page 16076, and forthcoming correction notice. Location: NSF, Room 1235, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting to the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the scope of which includes computer science. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 57, Friday, March 23, 2012, at Page 17102. Location: Room 1235, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

9:15 AM - 2:30 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Science Advisory Board (SAB). See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 53, Monday, March 19, 2012, at Pages 15996-15997. Location: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Wi-Lan v. LG Electronics, App. Ct. No. 2011-1626. Panel K. Location: Courtroom 201.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Apple v. Samsung, App. Ct. No. 2011-1105. Panel L. Location: Courtroom 402.

10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host an event titled "A Conversation with Six Former USTRs: Taking Stock and Assessing Priorities for the 2012 Trade Agenda". The speakers will be Susan Schwab, Charlene Barshefsky, Michael Kantor, Carla Hills, Clayton Yeutter, and William Brock. See, notice. Location: CSIS, 1800 K St.,  NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding (1) potential revocation of competitive need limitations (CNL) waivers, (2) possible de minimis CNL waivers, and (3) possible redesignations of articles currently not eligible for GSP benefits because they previously exceeded the CNL thresholds. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 52, Friday, March 16, 2012, at Pages 15839-15841.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-53 Rev. 4 [375 pages in PDF], titled "Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations".

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.

Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for 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 two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2012 David Carney. All rights reserved.