4/18. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kappos v. Hyatt, regarding procedure in the District Court when a patent applicant whose claims have been denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examiner files an action under 35 U.S.C. § 145.

The Supreme Court held that the patent applicant may submit evidence to the District Court not submitted to the patent examiner, and that there are no evidentiary restrictions.

Section 145 provides, in full, as follows: "An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under section 134(a) of this title may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have remedy by civil action against the Director in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Director appoints. The court may adjudge that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, as the facts in the case may appear and such adjudication shall authorize the Director to issue such patent on compliance with the requirements of law. All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant."

Gilbert Hyatt filed a patent application that, as amended, included 117 claims. The USPTO's patent examiner denied each claim for lack of an adequate written description. Hyatt appealed the examiner's decision to the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), which eventually approved 38 claims, but denied the rest.

Hyatt then filed a Section 145 action in U.S. District Court (DC) against David Kappos' predecessor as Director of the USPTO. The District Court granted summary judgment to the USPTO Director. Hyatt appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), which reversed. See, November 8, 2010, en banc opinion, which is also reported at 625 F.3rd 1320.

Kappos (at right) then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. See, petition, merits brief, and reply brief.

The Supreme Court wrote in its opinion that in a Section 145 action, "the applicant may present evidence to the district court that he did not present to the PTO. This case requires us to consider two questions. First, we must decide whether there are any limitations on the applicant's ability to introduce new evidence before the district court."

The Supreme Court held that "that there are no evidentiary restrictions beyond those already imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

"Second, we must determine what standard of review the district court should apply when considering new evidence."

The Supreme Court held that "that the district court must make a de novo finding when new evidence is presented on a disputed question of fact. In deciding what weight to afford that evidence, the district court may, however, consider whether the applicant had an opportunity to present the evidence to the PTO."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer.

Sotomayor wrote that "when a patent applicant fails to present evidence to the PTO due to ordinary negligence, a lack of foresight, or simple attorney error, the applicant should not be estopped from presenting the evidence for the first time in a §145 proceeding. ... But I do not understand today’s decision to foreclose a district court's authority, consistent with ``‘the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure,’´´ ... to exclude evidence ``deliberately suppressed´´ from the PTO or otherwise withheld in bad faith."

Intel, Microsoft, Nvidia and Yahoo filed a amicus curiae brief in this case in which they argued that the District Court should be allowed to preclude new evidence that reasonably should have been introduced at the USPTO.

They warned about delay and gamesmanship in the patent application process.

They wrote that "Gilbert Hyatt filed his initial patent application in 1975. It should have issued in due course, run its term, and expired over a decade ago. But he waited 20 years to introduce the current set of claims, ignored multiple requests by the examiner for the relevant information, and ultimately delayed for 9 years in presenting the evidence that he now alleges is the difference-maker for patentability. The Federal Circuit's decision permits and indeed encourages such needless delay, providing opportunities for gaming the system, even though Section 145 does not otherwise support such a result, and case law and good policy reject it."

Verizon, Google, HP and HTC submitted an amicus curiae brief. They argued that "The Court should decide this case on the logically antecedent, dispositive, and important basis that the written-description requirement presents a question of law, not fact. The government argues that a disappointed patent applicant may not generally present “new evidence” in court, and that a court’s consideration of such evidence should not change the level of deference."

They continued that "But the adequacy of a patent’s written description presents a question of law, not of fact, and respondent sought only to advance legal arguments concerning the adequacy of various portions of the patent’s written description. For that reason, the district court should not have rejected respondent’s submission on the ground that it was new evidence, and the Federal Circuit should not have held that consideration of the new submission would implicate the level of deference to which the Patent and Trademark Office (``PTO´´) is entitled."

This case is Gilbert Hyatt v. David Kappos, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 10-1219, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2007-1066. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

4/17. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Caraco Pharmaceutical v. Novo Nordisk, reversing the Court of Appeals. This case pertains to the Hatch Waxman Act.

The Supreme Court held that "a generic manufacturer may employ" the counterclaim provision of the Hatch Waxman Act "to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand's patent as covering a particular method of using the drug in question".

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) (at right), who had filed an amicus curiae brief, stated in a release that "I welcome the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Caraco v. Novo case. While the issues in the case may seem arcane, the fact of the matter is that allowing brand companies to exaggerate the breadth of their patent protections in their listings with FDA served as a real block to generics. I am pleased that the courts unanimously agreed with that view. This decision is in the interest of American consumers who should have the benefit of competition and lower prices."

See also, April 4, 2010 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

Justice Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.

This case is Caraco Pharmaceutical v. Novo Nordisk, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 10-844, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2010-1001.

4/17. Rep. Debbie Schultz (D-FL) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced HR 4362 [LOC | WW], the "Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act".

Rep. Smith and Rep. Schultz (at right) issued a release that states that "last year alone more than 850,000 tax returns and $5.8 billion were associated with fraudulent tax refunds involving identity theft".

They tout this bill as a way to fight tax return identity theft, in which criminals file false tax returns using the name and social security number of another person, in order to fraudulently receive a refund owed to that person.

It would make tax fraud (26 U.S.C. § 7206 or 26 U.S.C. §7207) a predicate offense for elevating identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028) to aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).

It would also amend 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which currently prohibits only the theft of the identity of an individual person, to also prohibit the theft of the identity of a business or other entity.

It would also direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) "to bring more perpetrators of tax return identity theft to justice". It would also direct the DOJ to report on the incidence of tax return identity theft, and the effectiveness of current statutes, and make recommendations for further amendments to statutes to further the prosecution of tax return identity theft.

This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Rep. Smith is the Chairman. Rep. Schultz is not a member. However, she was a member until she took leave to serve as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

4/16. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) released a statement that defends provisions of  HR 3523 [LOC | WW], the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011" or "CISPA", and announced several forthcoming revisions, including "new proposed amendments that would be considered when the bill reaches the House floor".

This bill is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the Chairman and ranking Democrat on the HIC. The HIC amended and approved it on November 30, 2011.

Some of the criticism of the CISPA addresses specific language in the bill. Some criticism is hyperbole without basis in the text of the bill.

The just released statement states that "The Rogers-Ruppersberger bill does not provide any authority or levy any requirements to block access to accounts or websites, or to remove content. The bill's authority is limited to the identification, obtaining, and sharing of cyber threat information."

It continues that "The bill is intended to defend against advanced cyber threats, such as threats from advanced nation-state actors like China. The definition has therefore been narrowed to remove the term ``intellectual property´´ from all definitions in the bill. This change was made to avoid any misunderstanding and to clarify that the bill is intended to defend against efforts to gain unauthorized access to systems or networks, including efforts to gain such unauthorized access to steal private or government information. The definitions remain technology-neutral in order to be flexible enough to address the rapidly changing cyber threat spectrum; the definitions also remain limited only to information that directly pertains to threats or vulnerabilities of networks or systems."

This document also states that there will be a new amendment regarding government accountability. "A new provision has been added to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill. Through such a lawsuit, individuals could obtain actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees."

4/18. The Senate is scheduled to resume reconsideration on Wednesday, April 18, of the motion to proceed to S 1925 [LOC | WW], the "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011". This long bill has little to do with information or communications technology (ICT). However, Section1003 of the bill would clean up the current poorly drafted language in the Communications Act, enacted in 2006, that makes it a crime to "annoy" someone on the internet. If enacted, it would still be a crime to "abuse, threaten or harass" someone with anonymous internet communications.

In January 2006 former President Bush signed into law a Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. That bill was HR 3402 (109th Congress). It is now Public Law No. 109-162. It included the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). That VAWA included amendments to 47 U.S.C. § 223, which prohibits obscene or harassing phone calls.

The 2006 VAWA amended Subsection 223(a)(1)(C) to make it a crime to utilize a "telecommunications device" without disclosing one's identity "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass".

The 2006 VAWA also added a new Subsection 223(h)(1(C), which provides that for the purposes of the above quoted Subsection 223(a)(1)(C), the term "telecommunications device" also "includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note))." (Parentheses in original.)

Thus, "annoying" someone on the internet became a crime. This prohibition has obvious Constitutional infirmities.

During the First Session of the 109th Congress, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) and its staff produced a cyber stalking bill. That carefully prepared bill did not become law. Rather, a much different version pushed by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was substituted for the HJC version during last minute negotiations and vote trading over HR 3402 (109th Congress).

For a more detailed explanation of this late amendment, see story titled "Bush Signs DOJ Reauthorization Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,284, January 6, 2006. See, subsection titled "The Internet as a Telecommunications Device".

The VAWA reauthorization now being considered by the Senate would revise the 2006 amendments to Section 223. It leaves in place the expansion of the meaning of "telecommunications device" to encompass internet communications. It eliminates the use of the word "annoy" in Section 223.

S 1925 would make the following changes to Subsection 223(a)(1)(C). Deletions are shown in strikethrough. Addition are shown in red.

"(a) ... Whoever ... (1) In interstate or foreign Communications ... (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications harass any specific person;"

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced this bill on November 30, 2011. It has 60 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) amended and approved this bill on February 2, 2012.

A related bill in the House, HR 4271 [LOC | WW], the "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012", would make identical changes to Section 223. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) introduced it on March 27, 2012. It was referred to the HJC and its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the House Commerce Committee (HCC), House Natural Resources Committee, and House Financial Services Committee.

4/16. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reissued its Request for Proposal (RFP) SA1301-12-RP-0043 for a new Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract. This is for the contract term of October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2015. The deadline to submit proposals is May 31, 2012 at 2:00 PM EDT. The deadline to submit questions regarding the solicitation are due by 2:00 PM EDT on April 23, 2012. See, summary, and RFP and Form 33.

4/16. The Free State Foundation (FSF) announced that it will will host a panel discussion on May 30, 2012, titled "The Multi-Stakeholder Privatized Internet Governance Model: Can It Survive Threats From The UN?". The speakers will include Robert McDowell (FCC Commissioner) and Richard Beaird (Department of State).

3/19. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell (at left) testified before the House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on the FY 2012 budget for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on March 19, 2012. He wrote in his prepared testimony, at pages 5-6, that "the long-standing international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating core functions of the Internet's ecosystem. Unfortunately, some nations, such as China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have been pushing to reverse this consensus by giving the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulatory jurisdiction over Internet governance." He warned that "These efforts could ultimately partition the Internet between countries that live under an intergovernmental regulatory regime and those member states that decide to opt out. Such a legal structure would be devastating to global free trade and rising living standards. It would also create an engineering morass."

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House will consider non-technology related items, including HR 4348 [LOC | WW], a bill pertaining to highways, surface transportation, and the XL pipeline. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume reconsideration the motion to proceed to S 1925 [LOC | WW], the "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011".

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Standards Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 52, Friday, March 16, 2012, at Page 15760. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee (HHSC) will meet to mark up HR 3674 [LOC | WW], the "Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011" or "PRECISE Act". See, amendment in the nature of a substitute [34 pages in PDF] to be offered by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA). See also, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

10:00 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (HOGRC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 4257 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012". See, amendment in the nature of a substitute [26 pages in PDF] to be offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board". The witnesses will be the five nominees: James Dempsey (CDT), Elisebeth Cook, Rachel Brand, David Medine, and Patricia Wald. See, notice. See also, story titled "Obama to Nominate Dempsey and Cook to Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,181, December 17, 2010, and August 25, 2001 letter of the ACLU, EPIC and others. The SJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

11:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement will hold a hearing titled "Document Fraud in Employment Authorization: How an E-Verify Requirement Can Help". The witnesses will include Waldemar Rodriguez (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). See, HJC notice. See also, story titled "Rep. Lamar Smith Seeks Passage of E-Verify Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,337, February 15, 2012. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Platform Competition and Market Convergence". The speakers will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), Anna-Marie Kovacs (Georgetown University), and Jonathan Sallet (O'Melveny & Myers). Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) will host a webcast presentation titled "Are You the Weakest Link?  Making Certain that In-House and Outside Counsel Protect Their Client’s Trade Secrets". The speakers will be Mark Halligan (Nixon Peabody) and Janet Craycroft (Intel Corporation). CLE credits. CD, MP4 download, archived webcast, and other formats available. Prices vary. See, registration page.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a audio webcast and telecast panel discussion titled "Remote Sales Tax and Nexus Issues: The Latest on Taxation of Internet Sales". The speakers will be Edward Bernert (Baker & Hostetler), George Isaacson (Brann & Isaacson), and Bruce Johnson (Utah State Tax Commission). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 PM. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on on Technology and Innovation will hold a hearing titled "Avoiding the Spectrum Crunch: Growing the Wireless Economy through Innovation". The witnesses will be Richard Bennett (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), Mary Brown ( Cisco Systems), Christopher McCabe (CTIA), Rangam Subramanian (Idaho National Laboratory), and James Olthoff (NIST). The HSC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Transportation Security will hold a hearing titled "Building Secure Partnerships in Travel, Commerce, and Trade with the Asia-Pacific Region". The witnesses will include Mark Koumans (DHS) and John Halinkski (DHS/TSA). See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) will hold a closed meeting. See, notice. Location: Room 219, Hart Building.

3:30 - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "Inside the FCC: Tips on Effective Written Advocacy from FCC Staff". For more information, contact Brendan Carr (Wiley Rein) at bcarr at wileyrein dot com or Justin Faulb (Lampert O'Connor & Johnson) at faulb at lojlaw dot com. The FCBA states that this is an event of its Young Lawyers Committee. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) that seeks comment regarding whether to fund Rural Health Care Pilot Program participants who will exhaust funding allocated to them before or during funding year 2012 (July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013). The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) released this PN on February 27, 2012. It is DA 12-273 in WC Docket No. 02-60. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 47, Friday, March 9, 2012, at Pages 14364-14366.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. The House will consider non-technology related items. See, Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week.

8:15 AM - 2:45 PM. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing titled "China-Europe Relationship and Transatlantic Implications". Location: Room HVC-245, Capitol Visitor Center.

8:30 AM - 1:30 PM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI), Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and Silicon Flatirons will host an event titled "The Innovation Consensus: Economic Growth in 2013 and Beyond". The speakers will include Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), and Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI). See, TPI notice and ITIF notice. Location: Kaiser Family Foundation, 1330 G St., NW.

CANCELLED? 9:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a hearing titled "Ongoing Intelligence Activities". See, notice. Location: __.

9:30 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related \Agencies will meet to mark up the FY 2013 CJS appropriations bill. See, notice. There will be no webcast. Location: Room H-140, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's (HWMC) Subcommittee on Human Resources will hold a hearing titled "Use of Technology to Better Target Benefits and Eliminate Waste, Fraud, and Abuse". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

10:00 AM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (HOGRC) will hold a hearing titled "Problems at the Internal Revenue Service: Closing the Tax Gap and Preventing Identity Theft". See, notice. Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda again includes consideration of the nominations of William Kayatta to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir), John Fowlkes (USDC/WDTenn), Kevin McNulty (USDC/DNJ), Michael Shipp (USDC/DNJ), and Stephanie Rose (USDC/SDIowa). The SJC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will hold a hearing titled "Where the Jobs Are: Can American Manufacturing Thrive Again?". The witness will be Secretary of Commerce John Bryson. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Committee will host an event titled "A Panel Discussion on the Verizon/Spectrum Co. and Verizon/Cox Transactions". The price to attend is $17. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on April 17. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

4:00 - 5:00 PM. Proponents of state control or regulation of alcohol sales will host a news briefing titled "The Dangers of an Uncontrolled Marketplace". For more information, contact Elizabeth Armstrong at 202-371-9792 or elizabeth dot armstrong at wswa dot org. Location: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St. NW.

4:30 - 6:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Federalist Society (FS) will host a discussion of the book [Amazon] titled "Taming Globalization: International Law, the U.S. Constitution and the New World Order". The speakers will be the co-authors, Julian Ku (Hofstra University School of Law) and John Yoo (UC Berkeley School of Law), as well as Martin Flaherty (Fordham University School of Law), Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason University School of Law), and Jennifer Rubin (Commentary Magazine). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Rep. Cantor's schedule for the week states that "no votes are expected in the House".

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion by proponents of increasing regulatory burdens on broadcasters to disclose information. The speakers will be Michael Calabrese (NAF), Steven Waldman (Columbia Journalism School), Corie Wright (Free Press), Harold Feld (Public Knowledge), and Kathy Kiely (Sunlight Foundation). Waldman previously worked at the Genachowski FCC, where he wrote, among other things, the FCC report titled "Information Needs of Communities". Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Fundamentals of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions". The speakers will be Daniel Fisher (Akin Gump), John Vasily (Debevoise & Plimpton), and Andrew Brady (Skadden Arps). Prices vary. 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: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Public Knowledge (PK) will host an event related to Open Source Hardware". There will be two panels, and a technology exposition. Location: Room 2168 (Gold Room), Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit reply 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 comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR 7511 Rev. 3.01.165 [47 pages in PDF] titled "Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) Version 1.0 Validation Program Test Requirements".

8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability will meet. Title VI of HR 3630 [LOC | WW], the spectrum bill enacted into law in February, provided for the creation of this board. See, notice. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

1:00 PM. TIME. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Hot Legal Issues In Online Affiliate Marketing". The speakers will be Thomas Cohn (LeClair Ryan), Elizabeth Tucci (Federal Trade Commission), Mark Campbell (State of Florida), and Adam Solomon (Olshan Grundman). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [14 pages in PDF] regarding allowing Economic Area (EA) based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees to exceed a channel spacing and bandwidth limitation. The FCC adopted this NPRM on March 7, 2012, and released the text on March 9. It is FCC 12-25 in WT Docket No. 12-64; WT Docket No. 11-110. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 61, Thursday, March 29, 2012, at Pages 18991-18996.

2:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management will hold a hearing titled "America is Under Cyber Attack: Why Urgent Action is Needed". See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will host a presentation titled "Market Structure, Regulation and Mobile Network Penetration". The speaker will be Yan Li (University of East Anglia) co-author of a paper with the same title. For more information, contact Thomas Jeitschko at 202-532-4826 or atr dot eag at usdoj dot gov. Location: Liberty Square Building, 450 5th St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and telecast panel discussion titled "Should I Sue? The Perils of Litigation in the Age of Anonymous". This panel will address hacking attacks launched in retaliation for the filing of lawsuits. The speakers will be Tanya Forsheit (InfoLawGroup), Marcia Hofmann (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Steven Teppler (Edelson McGuire), and Gib Sorebo (SAIC). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

3:00 - 4:30 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Resolved: U.S. Ex-Im Bank Financing is a Vital Component of U.S. Competitiveness". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), Sallie James (Cato Institute), Andrew Roth (Club for Growth), and Loren Thompson (Lexington Institute). See, notice. Location: Congressional Auditorium, Capitol Visitor Center.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Committee will host an event titled "New Developments in Merger Analysis and their Implications in FCC Merger Review". CLE credits. Prices Vary. Registrations and cancellations due by 12:00 NOON on Monday, April 23. See, notice. Location: __.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host the second part of a two part program titled "Preserving Intellectual Property Rights in Government Contracts". The speakers will be David Bloch (Winston & Strawn), Richard Gray (Department of Defense), John Lucas (Department of Energy), and James McEwen (Stein McEwen). The price to attend this part ranges from $89 to $129. CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

TIME? The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) will host an event titled "CES on the Hill". See, notice. Location: Room B-357, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an oversight hearing on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will testify. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

6:30 PM. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) will host an event titled "Digital Patriots Dinner". The honorees will be Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and David Rubenstein (Managing Director of the Carlyle Group). There will be a reception at 6:30 PM. The dinner will begin at 7:30 PM. See, notice. Location: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW.

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.