|Representatives Introduce Bill to Restrain
Patent Assertion Entities
10/23. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and others
introduced HR 3309
PDF], the "Innovation Act", a bill that would address abusive
practices by patent assertion entities (PAEs), and other patent subjects. See also, the
House Judiciary Committee's (HJC)
bill summary and
This bill does not attempt to define or classify PAEs, non-practicing entities (NPE),
patent trolls, or any other categories. Rather, it would impose heightened pleading
requirements upon all who assert patents by way of complaint, counterclaim or cross claim.
It would shift fees to the nonprevailing party in patent actions. It would impose
certain limitations upon discovery in patent actions.
It would facilitate intervention by manufacturers in infringement claims against their
customers, and provide for stays of the infringement claims against the customers, if certain
conditions are met. It would also add a new subsection on joinder.
Both in pleading, and outside of litigation, it would require more disclosure of ownership
interests in patents.
The bill is also a vehicle for amendments to patent law and other provisions
that are not related to abusive practices of patent assertion entities.
One provision would touch on copyright. It contains an amendment to the
bankruptcy statute that would protect all intellectual property licenses
in bankruptcy proceedings.
See also, related story in this issue titled "Summary of the Innovation Act".
This is just one of many pending bills directed at abusive practices by some PAEs, which
the sponsors describe with the terms "trolls" and "extortion".
See, story titled "Summary of Pending Patent Reform Bills" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 2,592, August 29, 2013.
However, this bill is likely to be the focus of legislative efforts in the House.
The bill was referred to the HJC. There is not yet a companion bill in the
The Republican original cosponsors are Rep.
Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC),
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT),
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL),
Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA),
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), and
Rep. George Holding (R-NC). All are members of
The Democratic original cosponsors are Rep. Peter
DeFazio (D-OR), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Of these three, only Rep.
Lofgren is a member of the HJC.
Rep. Goodlatte also announced that the HJC will hold a hearing on Tuesday,
Reaction. Matt Levy of the Computer and
Communications Industry Association (CCIA) stated in a
release that "We are very pleased that the bill is a serious effort to address
the full scope of the problem. This bill would make it less profitable for patent trolls
to sue, would offer tools to those unfairly targeted, including end users, and improve
He added that "Patent trolls predominantly use poor quality business method
patents to sue non-tech companies and start-ups. That’s why we also appreciate the
Chairman’s focus on an alternative to litigation by making the covered business method
review program more effective. The bill gives the PTO a chance to address more bad patents
without changing the standard for what’s patentable or risking companies’ strong patent
Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA), praised the bill in a
release. He said that "Frivolous patent litigation is a massive problem and
it is getting worse. Patent trolling had ballooned into a billion dollar
industry dedicated to punishing innovators, undermining the integrity of the
patent system, killing jobs and damaging our economy. This bill contains smart
and targeted reforms that will help promote continued innovation in the U.S. and
make life difficult for those who seek to abuse our patent system."
Matt Reid of the Business Software Alliance (BSA)
stated in a
release that this bill "includes important reform measures that will reduce
the financial incentive for bad actors to engage in abusive patent litigation.
Those proposals enjoy broad-based support among stakeholders".
But, he added that "we are concerned that proposed language to provide
customer stays could inadvertently create loopholes that bad actors will use to
game the system. Pressing forward with these types of measures would unravel
political consensus and hurt the chances of passing needed legislation. Finally,
we are concerned that requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to change the
way it interprets patent claims in review proceedings would benefit predatory
litigants rather than deter them."
He stated that the provisions that have broad support include fee shifting,
heightened pleading requirements, and discovery limitations.
|Summary of the Innovation Act
10/23. The following is a summary of HR 3309
PDF], the "Innovation Act", introduced in the House on October 23,
Heightened Pleading Requirements. The bill would add a new Section
281A to Titled 35 titled "Pleading requirements for patent infringement
actions". Currently, 35
U.S.C. § 281 does nothing more that create a private right of action for
infringement. It provides in full that "A patentee shall have remedy by civil
action for infringement of his patent."
The bill would require a party alleging patent infringement to identify each
allegedly infringed patent, and every allegedly infringed claim of each such
patent. The bill also sets out further information that must be included
regarding the alleged infringement.
The bill contains heightened pleading requirements that not only would
require pleading the claim with greater particularity than normal pleading
requirements, but which would also require pleadings to include information not
necessary to put other parties on notice of the claim.
For example, the bill would require the disclosure, via pleading, of other
complaints that assert the same patents. The bill would also require disclosure,
via pleading, of information regarding whether the patent asserted is a
standards essential patent, and whether any government has imposed licensing
requirements with respect to that patent. The bill would also require a
description of the principal business of the party alleging infringement.
Fee Shifting. This bill would replace the current Section 285 with a
fairly straightforward fee shifting section.
U.S.C. § 285 provides that "The court in exceptional cases may award
reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." That is, each party
ordinarily pays its own attorneys. And, except in "exceptional cases", the
winner cannot recover its attorneys fees at the conclusion of the case. Fee
shifting could have a significant impact, because a party often pays millions of
dollars in legal fees to pursue a patent case to judgment.
First, this bill would replace this with the following: "The court shall award,
to a prevailing party, reasonable fees and other expenses incurred by that party in
connection with a civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief
arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, unless the court finds
that the position of the nonprevailing party or parties was substantially
justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust."
It adds that "If a nonprevailing party is unable to pay reasonable fees and
other expenses ... the court may make the reasonable fees and other expenses recoverable
against any interested party joined pursuant to section 299(d)."
(The next item in the bill creates this new subsection 299(d).)
Also, any patent asserting party who "subsequently unilaterally extends to
such other party a covenant not to sue for infringement with respect to the
patent or patents at issue, shall be deemed to be a nonprevailing party".
These changes would only apply to actions filed after enactment. Also, unlike some other
legislative proposals, this bill contains no provisions that would require the posting
of a bond.
Joinder. The bill would amend
35 U.S.C. § 299,
which pertains to joinder of parties, by adding a new subsection.
This new subsection would enable a party defending against a claim of patent
infringement "to join an interested party if such defending party shows that the
party alleging infringement has no substantial interest in the patent or patents
at issue other than asserting such patent claim in litigation."
Discovery Limitations. This bill would add a new Section 299A to Title
35. Proponents of this legislation argue that discovery burdens are asymmetric,
with parties defending against infringement claims incurring more costs and
inconveniences to comply with discovery requests. Hence, they argue, discovery
processes can be abused to burden or harass such defendants. This, in turn,
creates a perverse incentive to settle meritless claims.
This section provides that "if the court determines that a ruling relating to
the construction of terms used in a patent claim asserted in the complaint is
required, discovery shall be limited, until such ruling is issued, to
information necessary for the court to determine the meaning of the terms used
in the patent claim, including any interpretation of those terms used to support
the claim of infringement". However, the new section also allows the court
discretion to allow more discovery.
Stays of Actions Against Customers. This bill implies that manufacturers
may intervene in infringement claims against their customers. It further
provides for stays of the infringement claims against the customers, if certain
conditions are met. See, Section 5.
The bill does not expressly create a right of intervention for manufacturers
whose customers have been sued. The bill does not even reference intervention or
Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But, the sponsors' bill summary states that
the bill "Allows a manufacturer to intervene in a suit against his customers",
the interaction of Section 5 of the bill and Rule 24 implies a right to
Section 5 of the bill provides this:
"the court shall grant a motion to stay at least the portion of the action
against a covered customer related to infringement of a patent involving a
covered product or process if the following requirements are met:
(1) The covered manufacturer and the covered customer consent in
writing to the stay.
(2) The covered manufacturer is a party to the action or to a
separate action involving the same
patent or patents related to the same covered product or process.
(3) The covered customer agrees to be bound by any judgment entered
against the covered manufacturer to the same extent that the covered
manufacturer may be bound with respect to issues that the covered manufacturer
and the covered customer have in common.
(4) The motion is filed after the first pleading in the action and
not later than 120 days after service of the first pleading in the action that
specifically identifies -- (A) the covered product or process as a basis for the
alleged infringement of the patent by the covered customer; and (B) how the
covered product or process is alleged to infringe the patent."
Transparency of Patent Ownership. Currently,
35 U.S.C. § 290
provides in full that "The clerks of the courts of the United States, within one
month after the filing of an action under this title shall give notice thereof
in writing to the Director, setting forth so far as known the names and
addresses of the parties, name of the inventor, and the designating number of
the patent upon which the action has been brought. If any other patent is
subsequently included in the action he shall give like notice thereof. Within
one month after the decision is rendered or a judgment issued the clerk of the
court shall give notice thereof to the Director. The Director shall, on receipt
of such notices, enter the same in the file of such patent."
This bill would expand Section 290 to require further disclosures. The
"plaintiff shall disclose" to the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as to the District Court and "each
adverse party", the identity of the "assignee of the patent or patents at
issue", any "entity with a right to sublicense or enforce the patent or patents
at issue", any "entity, other than the plaintiff, that the plaintiff knows to
have a financial interest in the patent or patents at issue or the plaintiff",
and the "ultimate parent entity of any assignee identified".
These disclosure requirements would apply only to a plaintiff asserting a
patent. There is no impact on patent assertions made by counter-claim or
The obligations to make disclosures to the USPTO are ongoing. These
disclosure to the USPTO requirements will cause the USPTO to incur costs. Hence,
the bill also allows the USPTO to write rules that impose disclosure fees.
Provisions Not Related to Restraining Abusive Patent Assertion Entities.
The remainder of the bill, three fifths of its pages, are devoted to subjects
other than dealing with abusive litigation brought by patent trolls.
The bill would repeal
35 U.S.C. § 145, which
enables an unsuccessful patent applicant to bring an action in the District
Court to obtain a patent.
The bill would amend
35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2)
by striking the clause "or reasonably could have raised".
The bill would amend
35 U.S.C. § 316(a)
regarding inter partes review, and
35 U.S.C. § 326(a)
regarding post grant review.
The bill would add a new Section 106 to Title 35 regarding "Prior art in
cases of double patenting". The sponsors' summary states that this "codifies
the double-patenting doctrine and applies it to first to file patents, controlling
the effects of exceptions to prior art that permit a patentee to obtain multiple
patents for what is basically the same invention and then sell those patents to
different parties, requiring others to obtain multiple licenses from multiple parties
to practice the invention".
The bill would amend the America Invents Act (AIA) provision regarding
covered business method patent reviews.
The sponsors' summary states that this "codifies PTO's current
practices that are in line with AIA legislative intent, and eliminates the
opportunity for gamesmanship by applying the program to all first to invent
It also "Clarifies several aspects of the definition of ``covered business
method patent,´´ codifying the interpretation of the words ``practice,
administration, or management of a financial product or service´´ to that
adopted by the PTAB decision in SAP v. Versata."
The bill would amend
35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)
to provide a clarification of limits on patent term adjustments.
The bill makes this statement regarding all claims filed after enactment of
the bill: "The Federal interest in preventing inconsistent final judicial
determinations as to the legal force or effect of the claims in a patent
presents a substantial Federal issue that is important to the Federal system as
The bill would require the USPTO to conduct several studies, including a
study on secondary market oversight for patent transactions to promote
transparency and ethical business practices, a study on patent owned by the
federal government, and a study on patent quality and access to the best
information during examination.
The bill also contains an amendment to Title 11 to protect intellectual
property licenses in bankruptcy proceedings.
Things Not in this Bill. Several things are not in the bill. It does not
address abusive pre-litigation practices, such as unfair or deceptive demand letters.
See, related story in this issue titled "Commentary: Patent Reform, Demand Letters
and Non-Litigation Tactics".
This bill does not impose any requirement to post a bond.
This bill does not address actions before the U.S.
International Trade Commission (USITC) for exclusion orders.
|Commentary: Patent Reform, Demand Letters
and Non-Litigation Tactics
10/23. HR 3309 [
LOC | WW |
PDF], the "Innovation Act", is focused upon
litigation procedure. In contrast, proponents of legislation have spent the last
few years complaining about the pre-litigation tactics of patent assertion
entities (PAEs). There is a disconnect.
As is often the case in the legislative process, there is a partial mismatch
between the undesirable activities that proponents of legislation present to the
Congress and public, and the activities that would be regulated by the actual
For example, the Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA), which has applauded this bill, hosted an event for technology reporters on October
7 at which small start up businesses related their experiences with PAEs.
The emphasis was on demand letters and other pre-litigation tactics, and their
effect upon small start-ups, and the innovation that they provide.
The CEA's Michael Pettricone said that patent trolls are targeting "end user
consumers and coffee shops" who know little about the patent claim or patent law.
Todd Moore, the founder of a three person company named
TMSOFT, said at that event that he had
received a demand letter and other communications, and was eventually sued, on a
meritless claim. He added that he had obtained pro bono counsel, and that the
plaintiff dismissed the action. He said that start ups are afraid to publish
demand letters for fear that they will be sued in retaliation, and cannot
publish if they settle, because settlements include non-disclosure clauses.
Another speaker said that start ups also fear the impact of demand letters upon
Similar events in the past year have presented speakers who have focused on
pre-litigation tactics. Their narrative is that patent trolls send out large
volumes of form demand letters to end users of products that they claim infringe
their patent. The demands often do not put the targets on notice of what patent
has been infringed, or how. Hence, the recipients have no way of evaluating the
claim. Some claims are meritless. Others are fraudulent. The claimants set
settlement offers below what it would cost for the targets to hire patent
counsel to investigate and advise them. Hence, many pay demands without ever
learning if there was any merit to the claim, and without disclosing their
ordeal to others.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the
sponsor of the bill, stated at a news conference on October 23 that the bill
does deal with pre-litigation tactics. He did not elaborate.
He might have been referring to Section 7 of the bill. There is vague and
toothless language about the USPTO developing "educational resources for small
businesses to address concerns arising from patent infringement", about the
USPTO ombudsman engaging in "outreach", and about the USPTO putting online
information about pending litigation.
However, nothing in the bill directs, or even authorizes, the USPTO to take any kind
of action in connection with pre-litigation patent assertion tactics. The USPTO is not
even directed to study the issue. Nor is the USPTO given any authority to obtain copies
of demand letters from those asserting patent infringement.
Regulation of pre-litigation communications is already a fixture of the
American legal system. Lawyers are regulated by state bar associations, which
impose ethical limitations upon their practices, including communications with
State and federal statutes, enforced by private rights of action and
government consumer protection agencies, limit the communications of, among
others, debt collectors. See for example, the federal
Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., which
prohibits all false, deceptive, or misleading representations, abuse, and unfair
The Congress could enact a Fair Patent Assertion Practices Act.
Alternatively, it could simply amend
15 U.S.C. § 45, to enumerate
proscribed unfair or deceptive patent assertion practices.
Perhaps it is the case the mom and pop owners of coffee shops and other small
business end users make more sympathetic candidates for protection by the
Congress than large companies that can afford teams of patent lawyers. But, it
may be the organized industries whose interests are to be protected by this
Another reason for not addressing pre-litigation tactics in this bill may relate to the
jurisdiction of committees, and attempting the increase the likelihood of enactment of a bill.
The HJC and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC)
have many members who would like to enact a bill. They also have jurisdiction over both
intellectual property law and judicial procedure. Bills such as HR 3309
fall squarely within the jurisdiction of these two committees.
In contrast, pre-litigation tactics are not necessarily a matter of IP law or judicial
procedure. Legislation directed at demand letters and other communications would be in the
nature of prescription of fraudulent and deceptive practices in interstate commerce, which
might lie within the jurisdiction of the
House Commerce Committee (HCC) and
Senate Commerce Committee (SCC). Moreover,
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which
is overseen by the HJC and SJC, is not an anti-fraud enforcement agency. It lacks
enforcement capabilities. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), which is overseen by the HCC and SCC, is an anti-fraud enforcement agency with
depth and experience in brining enforcement actions.
Moreover, in the past two decades, with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
and the development of new information and communications technologies, the HCC has
aggressively expanded its turf, at the expense of the HJC, and free markets. TLJ first wrote
about this jurisdictional struggle in 1999. See,
"House Commerce and Judiciary Committees Vie for High Tech Leadership", June 15,
Members of the HJC are loath to take any action that would diminish their
authority over what they see as an intellectual property matter solely within
their committee's jurisdiction. Including pre-litigation provisions into a bill
would risk sharing jurisdiction over the bill, and loosing turf to the HCC.
There is also the matter that the HCC and HJC are responsive to different
sets of organized interests, and hence, if both were tasked with writing a bill,
they would likely produce different products. The probability of enactment of
any bill would be decreased.
One legislative tactic available to Rep. Bob
Goodlatte (R-VA), the Chairman of the HJC and sponsor of HR 3309, would be to report
a bill out of the HJC that contains no provisions that would give the HCC a claim to
jurisdiction, but then offer an amendment on the House floor that addresses fraudulent
and deceptive demand letters, but in a manner that does not involve the FTC Act or the FTC.
Jurisdictional considerations also provide a reason for addressing patent actions
brought in the U.S. District Court, but not patent infringement based exclusion actions
brought in the U.S. International Trade Commission
(USITC). The House Ways and Means Committee
(HWMC) has jurisdiction over trade issues. HR 3309 does nothing to limit abusive
actions by PAEs in the USITC for exclusion orders.
|This issue contains the following items:
• Representatives Introduce Bill to Restrain Patent Assertion Entities
• Summary of the Innovation Act
• Commentary: Patent Reform, Demand Letters and Non-Litigation Tactics
New items are highlighted in
|Thursday, October 24
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at
12:00 NOON for legislative business. It will consider a water resources
bill. Rep. Cantor's schedule.
The Senate will not meet.
8:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Day one of a two day event hosted by the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) titled "CBP 2013 East Coast Trade
Symposium". The CBP, among other missions, seizes products imported into
the U.S. in violation of intellectual property rights, or that are circumvention
devices. In addition, the DHS's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) is involved in the seizure of domain names of commercial web
sites that traffick in infringing, counterfeit and illegal products. The agenda
includes discussion of CBP's role in international trade initiatives and partnerships.
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 181, September 18, 2013, at Page 57408. Location:
Washington Hilton Hotel, Room Columbia 5-12, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW.
8:45 - 11:30 AM. The American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Innovators versus
litigators: Chairman Bob Goodlatte on the need for patent reform".
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee (HCC),
will speak at 9:00 AM. The other speakers will include Jeffrey Eisenach,
Michael Beckerman (Internet Association), Jim Bessen (Boston University School
of Law), Kevin Rhodes (3M), and Claude Barfield (AEI). See,
notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
9:00 AM. The House Commerce
Committee (HCC) will hold a hearing titled "PPACA Implementation Failures:
Didn't Know or Didn't Disclose?". See also, story titled "Republicans
Query DHHS Regarding IT Failures in ObamaCare's FFM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
2.613, October 17, 2013. The witnesses will be Cheryl
Campbell (CGI Federal), Andrew Slavitt (Optum/QSSI), Lynn Spellecy (Equifax
Workforce Solutions, and John Lau (Serco). Webcast. See,
notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
9:00 AM. The House Homeland
Security Committee (HHSC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 3107
"Homeland Security Cybersecurity Boots on the Ground Act", and
HR 2952 [LOC
| WW], the
"Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of
2013". Webcast. See,
notice. Location: Room 311, Rayburn Building.
9:30 AM - 5:15 PM. The DC Bar
Association will host an event titled "IP Basic Training: Patents,
Trademarks, and Copyrights". The first part at 9:30 - 11:45 AM is titled
"Patent Basics". The second part at 12:30 - 2:45 PM is titled "Trademark
Basics". The third part at 3:00 - 5:15 PM is titled "Copyright Basics".
One can register for all or parts of this event. The speakers will be
Patrick Coyne (Finnegan Henderson),
Joanne Ludovici (McDermott Will
& Emery), and
(Gura & Possessky). Prices vary. CLE credits. No webcast. For more information,
call 202-626-3488. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. See,
notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.
RESCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 29.
10:00 AM. The House
Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a hearing titled "NSA Programs".
The witnesses will be __. See,
Location: Room 2167, Rayburn Building.
11:00 AM. The
House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Over-Criminalization Task Force will
hold a hearing titled "Regulatory Crime: Identifying the Scope of the
Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
11:45 AM - 2:15 PM. The Free
State Foundation (FSF) will host an event titled "A New FCC or the Same
Old, Same Old?". The speakers will include James Assey
(NCTA), William Kovacic (George Washington
University law school), Robert Quinn (AT&T),
(Northwestern University law school) and Randolph May (FSF). Lunch will be served. Free.
See, notice. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW.
12:30 - 4:30 PM. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
will host an event titled "Abenomics: Still on Target?". The speakers
will include Kenichiro Sasae (Ambassador of Japan to the United States). The other
speakers will include Matthew Goodman (CSIS), Jun Saito (Special Advisor,
Cabinet Office of Japan), Akinari Horii (Canon Institute for Global Studies),
Arthur Alexander (Georgetown University), Robert Dohner (Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Asia, Department of the Treasury), Kanji Yamanouchi (Minister
for Economic Affairs, Embassy of Japan),
Michael Green (CSIS), Kazuhito Yamashita (Canon Institute for Global Studies),
Richard Katz (The Oriental Economist Report), Laurence Bates (American Chamber
of Commerce in Japan), and Matthew Goodman (CSIS).See,
CSIS, 9th Floor Board Room, 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW.
1:00 - 2:00 PM ET. (12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM CT.) The
American Bar Association (ABA) will host an
on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Advertising, Consumer
Protection, & Privacy Law: An Emerging Practice with Exciting Career
Opportunities". The speakers will be Jenna Johnston (Tyson Foods), and
Leon Bechet, Rebecca Davis, Bob Newell, and Dan Rice (all of Wal-Mart Stores). Free.
No CLE credits. See,
notice. Location: Ball Courtroom, Waterman Hall, University of Arkansas School
of Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
2:00 PM. The House
Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade will
hold a hearing titled "The FTC at 100: Where Do We Go From Here".
The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See,
Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
|Friday, October 25
Rep. Cantor's schedule
states that no votes are expected in the House.
The Senate will not meet.
8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. Day two of a two day event hosted by the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) titled "CBP 2013 East Coast Trade Symposium".
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 181, September 18, 2013, at Page 57408. Location:
Washington Hilton Hotel, Room Columbia 5-12, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW.
8:30 - 10:30 AM. The
Technology Policy Institute
(TPI) will host an event titled "Patent Reform 2.0: Will Proposed Reforms
Address the Patent Troll Problems?". The speakers will include
Peter Detkin (Intellectual Ventures),
(University of Virginia School of Law), Matt Levy (Computer and Communications Industry
Association), Tom Lenard (TPI), and __. Breakfast will be served. See,
page. Location: City Club, 555 13th St., NW.
9:30 - 10:30 AM. The US
Telecom will host an event titled "The
IP Transition: A Business Perspective". The speakers will be Walter
McCormack (USTelecom), Jon Potter (Application Developers Alliance), Manuel
Rosso (Food on the Table), and Jeffrey Silva (Medley Global Advisors). See,
notice. Location: First Amendment Room, National Press Club, 529 14th
12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Net Caucus will host a panel discussion
titled "The NSA Internet Surveillance System: Who Has Oversight and How
Transparent is the Program?". The speakers will be __. Free. Open to the
public. Box lunches will be served. See, notice. Location: Room 2226, Rayburn
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American
Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Am I
Competent? The Ethical Use of Evolving Technologies". The speakers will
address acting competently when using new technologies, such as social media,
smartphones and cloud computing services. The speakers will be Daniel Crothers
(Justice of the Supreme Court of North Dakota), Andrew Perlman (Suffolk Law School),
and Ellyn Rosen (ABA). Prices vary. CLE credits. See,
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American
Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "IP
for Non-IP Attorneys: Highlights from the IP Deskbook for Business Lawyers".
The speakers will be Jonathan Rubens (Javid Rubens) and Sharon Sandeen (Hamline
University School of Law). Prices vary. CLE credits. See,
RESCHEDULED FROM OCTOBER 11. 2:30 -
4:00 PM. The US
Telecom will host an on site and webcast panel discussion titled "The
National Cybersecurity Framework -- The First Major Milestone".
Patrick Gallagher, head
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), will give an opening speech. There will then be a panel comprised of Charlie
Mitchell (Inside Cybersecurity), Donna Dodson (NIST), Adam Sedgewick (NIST), and Rosemary Leffler
(AT&T). Larry Clinton (Internet Security
Alliance) will give a closing speech. Free. Open to the public. Breakfast will
be served. See,
notice. Location: First Amendment Room, National Press Club, 529 14th
11:59 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) in connection with its October 4, 2013 hearing
regarding surveillance programs conducted pursuant Section 215 of the USA
PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For
more information, contact Susan Reingold at 202-331-1986 or info at pclob dot gov. See,
the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 179, September 16, 2013, at Pages 56951-56952. See also,
story titled "PCLOB Schedules Hearing and Comments Deadline Regarding Sections 215 and
702 Surveillance" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,601, September 16, 2013.
EXTENDED FROM OCTOBER 11. Extended deadline to submit comments
to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR)
to assist it in preparing a report on the internet and physical notorious markets
that exist outside the US and that may be included in the OUSTR's 2013 Notorious Markets
notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 183, September 20, 2013, at Pages
57924-57925, and story titled "USTR Seeks Comments on Notorious Foreign
Markets" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,606, September 27, 2013. See also,
release which extends the deadline to October 25,
notice in the FR, Vol. 78, No. 190, October 1, 2013, at Page 60367. The docket number is
|Monday, October 28
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. See,
10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) will host an event titled "open meeting". The agenda includes adoption of a
R&O and FNPRM on rural call completion, a R&O on interoperability in
the lower 700 MHz band, and a R&O with rules for the 700 MHz spectrum licensed
to the First Responder Network Authority. See,
notice. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting
Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Tech
Freedom (TF), Reason Foundation and Koch Institute will host an on site and webcast
panel discussion titled "DC v. SF: A Clash of Vision for Tech Policy".
The speakers will be Declan McCullagh (CNET), Berin Szoka (TF), Larry Downes (TF), and
Mike McGeary (Engine Advocacy). Free. Open to the public. Lunch will be served. See,
notice. Location: Hyatt Regency, 5
Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA.
Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
responses to challenges in connection with the FCC's notice that lists all census blocks
that price cap carriers have requested funding to serve as part of the second round of
Connect America Phase I, and that announces the start of the Phase I challenge process
to determine whether or not the requested census blocks are unserved. See, FCC's August 29,
Notice (DA 13-1832 in WC Docket No. 10-90).
|Tuesday, October 29
9:30 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC)
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Sensors
and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed
notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 190, October 1, 2013, at
Pages 60251-60252. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street
between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.
TIME? The House Judiciary
Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing on legislation to address abusive litigation
practices by patent trolls. The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 2141,
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled
"The Evolution of Digital Content". Daniel Castro (ITIF), David
Israelite (National Music Publishers' Association), Lee Knife (Digital Media Association),
Zahavah Levine (Google), and John McCoskey (MPAA). Free. Open to the public. See,
Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610, 1101 K St., NW.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar
Association (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be Jessica Rosenworcel,
Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The deadline for
registrations and cancellations is 12:00 NOON on October 23. Prices vary.
No webcast. See,
notice. Location: Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St., NW.
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar
Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Hot Topics
in Cybersecurity Law". The speakers will be Michael Aisenberg (MITRE
Corporation), David Bodenheimer (Crowell & Moring), Martha Chemas, Lucy Thomson
(Livingston), and Hoyt Kesterson (Terra Verde Services). Prices vary. CLE credits. See,
RESCHEDULED FROM OCTOBER 24. 1:30 PM. The
House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will
hold a hearing titled "NSA Programs". The witnesses will be __. See,
Room 2167, Rayburn Building.
|Wednesday, October 30
POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 12. 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department
of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a meeting to discuss its
Policy Task Force's
[122 pages in PDF] titled "Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in
the Digital Economy", released on July 31, 2013. See,
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 192, October 3, 2013, at Pages 61337-61341,
and notice of rescheduling.
Location: Amphitheatre, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300
Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Global Justice Information Sharing
Initiative Federal Advisory Committee will meet. See,
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 180, September 17, 2013, at Page 57178.
Location: Hilton Crystal City at Washington Reagan National Airport, 2399 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
9:00 AM. The
House Commerce Committee (HCC) will hold a
hearing titled "PPACA Implementation Failures: Answers from HHS". See
also, story titled "Republicans Query DHHS Regarding IT Failures in ObamaCare's
FFM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2.613, October 17, 2013. The witnesses may include
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Webcast. See,
notice. Location: Room __, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The American
Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "The
Amended COPPA Rule: Adapting to the Final Implementation". The speakers will be
(Norton Rose Fulbright),
Blumenfeld (Crowell & Moring), Kristin Cohen (FTC), and Phyllis Spaeth (Council
of Better Business Bureaus). The price ranges from free to $25. No CLE credits. See,
1:00 PM. The US Telecom
will host a webcast presentation titled "How Peering Improves Security".
The speaker will be William Norton (International Internet Exchange). Free. Open to the
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American
Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Protect
Your Practice Website: Is Your Firm at Risk After Google's Penguin 2.0 Algorithm
Change?". The speakers will be Mischelle Davis (Davis Law Group), Tom Foster
(Foster Web Marketing), David Frees (Unruh Turner Burke & Frees), and Christina
Eaglin (MMPP). Prices vary. See,
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The DC Bar
Association and the American Bar Association (ABA) will host a panel discussion
titled "Practitioners' Guide to FISA". The speakers may include
Steven Cash (Deck Prism),
Wainstein (Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft), and/or others. Free. No CLE credits.
No webcast. For more information and to register to attend, contact Mike Abler at
abler dot michael at gmail dot com, mabler at deckprisim dot net, or 703-915-4514.
The DC Bar bars reporters from most of its events. The ABA allows reporters at most
of its events. See, DC bar
notice and ABA
notice. Location: Cadwalader Wickersham
& Taft, 700 6th St., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Homeland Security and Emergency
Communications Committee will host an event titled "The State of Cyber
Security Standards in the US". The speakers will be Chris Moore (FCC's
Office of Legislative Affairs), Jeffery Goldthorp (FCC's Public Safety &
Homeland Security Bureau), Joel Margolis (Subsentio), former Rep. Clifford Stearns
(APCO Worldwide), Diane Rinaldo (office of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)), Clete Johnson
(Senate Intelligence Committee), and ___. No webcast. CLE credits. See,
notice. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776
K St., NW.
TIME? There will be an event titled "Practitioner's
Guide to FISA". There will also be an opening reception for the
American Bar Association (ABA)
conference on October 31 through November 1 titled "23rd Annual Review of the
Field of National Security Law". Location:
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, 700 6th
Effective date for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
rules changes regarding intentional radiators operating on an unlicensed basis
in the 57-64 GHz frequency range, aka 60 GHz. The FCC adopted and released its
and Order [32 pages in PDF] on August 9, 2013. It is FCC 13-112 in ET Docket No.
07-113 and RM-11104. See,
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 189, September 30, 2013, at Pages 59844-59850.
|Thursday, October 31
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The
American Bar Association (ABA) will host an on site and webcast panel discussion
titled "Meet the New Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics".
The speakers will be Aviv Nevo (DOJ), Donald Stockdale (Mayer Brown), Jacqueline
Grise (Cooley) and Amanda Wait (Hunton & Williams). The price to attend ranges
from free to $25. No CLE credits. See,
notice. Location: Mayer Brown, 1999 K St., NW.
Day one of a two day conference hosted by the
American Bar Association (ABA),
University of Virginia, Duke University, and Georgetown University titled "23rd
Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". CLE credits. No
webcast. Prices vary. See,
notice. Location: Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd St., NW.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to its September 23, 2013
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [18 pages in PDF] (DA 13-1954 in GN Docket
No. 12-268) titled "Public Notice". This pertains to reimbursable costs
of broadcasters and MVPDs associated with incentive auctions. See also,
Paragraphs 334-354 of the FCC's September 28, 2012
Proposed Rulemaking [205 pages in PDF] (FCC 12-118 in GN Docket No. 12-268). See
in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 190, October 1, 2013, at Pages 60281-60282. And see,
story titled "FCC Seeks Comments on Reimbursable Broadcaster and MVPD Costs"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,605, September 26, 2013.
|About Tech Law
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
card payments page.
TLJ is published by
carney at techlawjournal dot com
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998-2013 David Carney. All rights reserved.