5/31. Three statutory provisions pertaining to government surveillance powers sunsetted Sunday night at midnight. The three are Section 215, lone wolf, and roving wiretap authority. The House has passed a bill, HR 2048 [LOC | WW], the USA FREEDOM Act, that would extend all three. The Senate is likely to pass the House bill, perhaps with amendments, this week.

The House passed this bill on May 13, 2015, by a vote of 338-88. See, Roll Call No. 224. It also passed an earlier version of this bill last year, HR 3361 [LOC | WW], also titled USA FREEDOM Act, which the Senate did not pass.

Neither the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) nor the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) have reported a bill this year, even held a hearing on any bill this year.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not bring the House bill to the Senate floor until late on Friday night, May 22, just before the Senate recessed for the week long Memorial Day recess. However, opponents blocked further consideration of the bill at that time by defeating a cloture vote.

Kevin Bankston of the New America Foundation (NAF) described Sen. McConnell's strategy as a "game of chicken". See, NAF release.

The Senate returned from recess a day early. On Sunday evening, May 31, the Senate approved a motion to invoke cloture by a vote of 77-17. See, Roll Call No. 196. The Senate then proceeded to debate the House bill. But, the Senate has not yet passed the House bill.

Consequently, the three provisions of surveillance law expired. (Another critical provision, Section 702 outside the U.S. authority, also has a sunset, but with a different  date.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the SJC, and a proponent of passage of the House bill, stated in the Senate that "We should have proceeded to this bill two Fridays ago".

Sen. Leahy continued that "Had we done so, we could have stayed here to do our work, considered amendments, and passed the bill well in advance of tonight's sunset. Instead, we are hours away from expiration and just now considering legislation that many of us have been working on for years. Our intelligence community needs predictability and certainty, not a manufactured crisis."

Sen. Charles Grassley, the Chairman of the SJC, stated in the Senate that "For months, I've been working with members of both houses of Congress from both sides of the political aisle to try to find a middle ground solution that would reauthorize and strengthen our critical national security authorities, while at the same time enacting meaningful reform by ending the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' telephone records under Section 215 and providing greater transparency and accountability to Congress and the American people."

He also said that "I continue to have serious concerns with the bill. I'm particularly concerned about the lack of certainty and security surrounding the provider-based system to which the bill would transition the telephone records program, the bill’s addition of an unprecedented ``panel of experts´´ to challenge the government's applications in the FISA court -- a benefit we'd be extending to terrorists that typical criminals don't have when federal judges approve traditional wiretaps or search warrants".

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the cloture motions, both on May 22 and May 31. However, he did so because he wants to prevent passage of any bill extending Section 215 authority. He wants to completely terminate bulk phone records surveillance.

All of the no votes were cast by Republicans. Most likely did so because they oppose the House bill, and would prefer a straight extension of the three sunsets without otherwise modifying the statutes. That is, they like the NSA program as it is.

On the other hand, a couple of other Senators likely voted no because, like Sen. Paul, they want to completely terminate the NSA program.

Sen. Paul (at right), who drove some of his Republican colleagues to distraction, spoke passionately and at length about the creation of the United States, the drafting of the Constitution, and abusive government search and seizure practices, by King George III and President Obama.

"This is what we fought the revolution over", said Sen. Paul.

He argued that the NSA's bulk phone records collection program is a violation of the 4th Amendment, an intrusion upon the privacy of Americans, as well as unnecessary to fight terrorism.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) are sponsors of the House bill. They stated in a release Sunday evening that "We are pleased that the Senate has acted wisely to proceed with debate on the USA Freedom Act. This decision is long overdue. However, we are disappointed that the Senate has stalled debate on this strong, bipartisan bill and will not vote on it tonight. Because of Senate’s irresponsible inaction, three national security provisions will expire at midnight. We urge the Senate to act as expeditiously as possible to approve the USA Freedom Act, without amendment and without delay, so that we protect Americans’ civil liberties and our national security."

5/25. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Google v. Oracle urging it to deny Google's petition for writ of certiorari. At issue is whether 17 U.S.C. § 102 "precludes copyright protection for original software code that defines and organizes a set of functions that are useful in writing computer programs". The District Court held that it does. The Court of Appeals held that it does not, and reversed the District Court.

Introduction. The Supreme Court requested a brief from the OSG regarding whether or not it should hear the case. See, January 12, 2015 Orders List at pages 1-2. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in cases after requesting an OSG brief, and then receiving a recommendation to deny certiorari.

If the Supreme Court denies Google's petition for writ of certiorari, this would let stand the May 19, 2014 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

The Court of Appeals held in favor of Oracle on the key issue of the enforceability of copyrights in code that constitutes application programming interfaces, or APIs, which are used in building software applications. The Court of Appeals held that Oracle's "declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection".

Source code for software is copyrightable as an expression. And, Google copied huge chunks of Oracle's code from the Java Standard Library without license. Moreover, the statutory section on copyrightable subject matter does not carve out an express exception for APIs.

Google argued that Oracle seeks copyright protection for a "system" or "method of operation", which the Copyright Act expressly provides are not copyrightable.

In addition, Google, and amicus curiae, have articulated and relied heavily upon policy rationales for denying copyright protection, including promoting interoperability, maintaining balance in copyright law, protecting small and startup business, and removing the potential for anticompetitive conduct.

Also, the DOJ, which also enforces antitrust law, may not have viewed as Google as an appropriate petitioner for protecting small businesses from anticompetitive conduct by companies with market power.

These policy arguments may arise again in this case, because the Court of Appeals has remanded to the District Court the defense of fair use. These policy arguments are more pertinent to fair use analysis.

Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "The technology sector is heavily dependent on interoperability and imposing legal constraints on interoperation between programming languages can lead to serious competitive harm.".

He wrote that the OSG got it wrong, and that "The Supreme Court should absolutely hear this case."

Statute. Section 102(a) provides that "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works."

Subsection 102(b) adds that "copyright protection" does not extend to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Nature of the Dispute. Sun Microsystems developed the Java platform two decades ago. Sun personnel wrote the application programming interfaces (APIs) at issue in the Java programming language.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "Many software developers use the Java language, as well as Oracle's API packages, to write applications (commonly referred to as “apps”) for desktop and laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, and other devices." (Parentheses in original.)

Oracle announced its plans to acquire Sun, and all of its proprietary rights in Java, in April of 2009. It completed the transaction early in 2010. Oracle does not claim copyright in the Java language, but it does claim copyright in the Java Standard Library, includes APIs.

Google acquired Android, Inc. in 2005, and proceeded to develop the Android mobile operating system. Google boasted in its petition that "In the second quarter of 2014, third-party manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC, LG, and Lenovo sold more than 255 million smartphones that use the Android platform."

Oracle wrote in its complaint that "Google's Android competes with Oracle America's Java as an operating system software platform for cellular telephones and other mobile devices." It continued that "The Java platform is a bundle of related programs, specifications, reference implementations, and developer tools and resources that allow a user to deploy applications written in the Java programming language on servers, desktops, mobile devices, and other devices. The Java platform is especially useful in that it insulates applications from dependencies on particular processors or operating systems."

The Court of Appeals wrote that Android is "a software platform that was designed for mobile devices and competes with Java in that market".

Google and Oracle discussed licensing the code. However, the Court of Appeals wrote, Oracle did not license the code because of "Google’s refusal to make the implementation of its programs compatible with the Java virtual machine or interoperable with other Java programs. Because Sun/Oracle found that position to be anathema to the ``write once, run anywhere´´ philosophy, it did not grant Google a license to use the Java API packages."

Then, Google proceeded to use the Java programming language to design its own virtual machine (Dalvik VM) and to write to write its own implementations for the functions in the Java API that were key to mobile devices. But, the Court of Appeals wrote, Google "copied the declaring source code from the 37 Java API packages verbatim".

Oracle's argument is that this code is protected by copyright law, Google copied without license, and therefore Oracle is entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

Google's argument in the present petition is that the code at issue is not subject to copyright protection.

Proceedings Below. Oracle filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (NDCal) on August 12, 2010 against Google alleging, among other things, patent infringement and copyright infringement. See, story titled "Oracle Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against Google" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,124, August 17, 2010.

Oracle alleged that it "owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform", and that Google copied without license.

That Google copied code is not in dispute. Google did dispute whether the copied code is subject to copyright (under 17 U.S.C. § 102), if so, whether its copying was protected by the doctrine of fair use (under 17 U.S.C. § 107).

The District Court trial jury found that Google infringed Oracle's copyrights in 37 API packages, and a specific computer routine called rangeCheck. It found no infringement with respect to eight decompiled security files. The jury deadlocked on Google's affirmative defense of fair use.

The District Court later ruled that the 37 API packages are not copyrightable. The District Court then granted judgment to Google on the copyright claims.

(The jury also found no patent infringement. That was not part of the May 2014 Court of Appeals opinion, and hence, is not at issue in the present petition for writ of certiorari.)

Oracle appealed, and Google cross appealed, to the Federal Circuit.

A three judge panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that "the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection". Hence, it reversed District Court's copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury's infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages.

The Court of Appeals also remanded "for further consideration of Google's fair use defense in light of this decision".

Google's Petition. Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on October 6, 2014.

Google argues that Oracle seeks copyright protection for a "system" or "method of operation", which Section 102(b) provides are not copyrightable. This, Google argues, may be subject to patent protection, but not copyright. Google also argues that there exists a conflict among the federal appeals courts which only the Supreme Court can resolve.

Google also advances the policy arguments that the Court of Appeals' holding will suppress innovation, and harm small and start up companies.

Google wrote that "this case is a prime example of the importance of compatibility and lock-in. Programmers have invested significant time and effort in learning the Java language , including the shorthand commands. ...But now, long after Sun lured computer programmers into the Java community and after any patent protection likely would have expired, Sun’s successor Oracle is attempting to build a wall around use of Java’s method headers."

Amicus Briefs. Numerous persons and entities filed amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The CCIA wrote that the APIs at issue in this case are "interface specifications". And, "If a company could exercise proprietary control over the interface specifications implemented by its products, that company could determine which products made by other firms -- if any -- would be compatible with its software. And should that company have a dominant position in a particular market, it could use its control over compatibility to expand its dominant position into adjacent markets."

"Moreover, such authority would extend the rights under copyright beyond what is necessary to protect the original expressive elements that have traditionally been offered protection under American copyright law, and it would override limitations on copyright crafted to protect the public good." The CCIA continued that "Such a broad monopoly would have serious implications for consumer welfare."

"These negative consequences would be compounded by the fact that the personal computer revolution and the emergence of the Internet have produced an overwhelming need for interconnection between different elements of computer systems. Prohibiting competitors from accessing de facto standard interface specifications would lock users into a particular operating system or network software environment, and would inhibit the transfer of data between users with different computing environments."

The Public Knowledge (PK) argued in its amicus brief that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari, and reverse.

The PK argued that "Copyright is granted to promote the public interest in generating new creative works, and as such balances between securing incentives for authors and ensuring an open space of ideas upon which future creators may build. As part of that balance, this Court and others have repeatedly held, since the venerable Baker v. Selden, that that no copyright may inhere in functional elements of a work. Such elements, being incidents of practical knowledge and the useful arts, cannot be restrained under a copyright system intended for aesthetic expression." (See, 1879 opinion of the Supreme Court in Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99.)

The PK continued that "The Federal Circuit ignored this essential mandate, by finding copyrightable an element of software that is quintessentially a method of operation. Left uncorrected, that decision threatens to undermine the fundamentalbalance of copyright law."

The PK concluded, "But it also threatens to undermine the decades of progress in Internet and computer technology that have come about only because the openness of technology interfaces enabled enormous competitive growth."

See also, amicus brief of HP, Red Hat, Yahoo urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the Court of Appeals.

OSG Brief. The OSG urged the Supreme Court to deny the petition for writ of certiorari. It wrote the Google's arguments that the code at issue is unprotected under Section 102(b) as a "system" or "method of operation" is without merit.

The OSG wrote that "Despite the inherently functional character of all computer code, the Copyright Act makes clear that such code can be copyrightable. Nothing about the declaring code at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code".

It also wrote that there is no genuine circuit split.

The OSG also addressed the policy based arguments. "Although petitioner has raised important concerns about the effects that enforcing respondent's copyright could have on software development, those concerns are better addressed through petitioner's fair-use defense, which will be considered on remand."

This case is Google v. Oracle, Supreme Court of the United States, Sup. Ct. No. 14-410, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 13-1021 and 13-1022. The Court of Appeals heard appeals from the U.S. District Court (NDCal), D.C. No. 10-CV-3561. See also, Supreme Court docket.

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 1998-2015 David Carney. All rights reserved.

The House will return from its Memorial Day recess. It will meet at 12:00 NOON for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider several non-technology related bills. See, Rep. McCarthy's schedule.

The Senate will meet at 12:00 NOON. It will resume consideration of HR 2048 [LOC | WW], the "USA FREEDOM Act".

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee (HRC) will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 2578 [LOC | WW], the "Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016". See, notice. Location: Room H-313, Capitol Building.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR 8058 [42 pages in PDF] titled "Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) Version 1.2 Content Style Guide: Best Practices for Creating and Maintaining SCAP 1.2 Content".

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The schedule for the week includes consideration of HR 2578 [LOC | WW], the "Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016". This bill contains appropriations for many ICT regulators, including the FCC, FTC, DOJ's Antitrust Division, and DOC's NTIA and NIST. See, Rep. McCarthy's schedule.

9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Lifeline: Improving Accountability and Effectiveness". The witnesses will be Randolph May (Free State Foundation), Michael Clements (GAO), Scott Bergmann (CTIA Wireless Association), Ronald Brisé (Florida Public Service Commission, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Jessica Gonzalez (National Hispanic Media Coalition). Webcast. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law will hold a hearing on HR 2315 [LOC | WW], the "Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015", HR 1643 [LOC | WW], the "Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2015", and HR __ the "Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015". Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Internal Revenue Service Data Theft Affecting Taxpayer Information". The witnesses will be John Koskinen (head of the IRS) and Russell George (Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Personalized User Model v. Google, App. Ct. No. 14-1841. Panel D. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel) in a patent infringement case involving personal web portals.This case is the third of four on the schedule. See, oral arguments schedule. No live webcast. Archived audio webcast. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association and the Women's Bar Association will host an event at which Grace Koh (Counsel to the HCC's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology) will speak about working for Congressional Committees and Members of Congress. The price to attend ranges from $10 to $23. No CLE credits. No webcast. For more information, contact Elizabeth Mueller at 202-639-8880. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. See, notice. Location: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, Suite 800, 1100 New York Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 9:00 PM ET. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) First Responder Network Authority. This meeting is in California, but will be webcast. On Tuesday, June 2, there will be meetings of four committees: Governance and Personnel, Technology, Outreach, and Finance. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 94, May 15, 2015, at Pages 27928-27929. Free. Open to the public.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a closed event at which Jonathan Sallet (FCC General Counsel) will speak. The price to attend ranges from $10 to $20. No CLE credits. No webcast. No reporters. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Hogan Lovells, 555 13th St., NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "19th Annual FCBA Foundation Golf Tournament". See, notice. Location: Westfields Golf Club, 13940 Balmoral Greens Avenue, Clifton, VA.

5:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will begin its mark up of HR 2576 [LOC | WW], the "TSCA Modernization Act of 2015", and HR 2583 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015". This session is for opening statements only. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit written submissions to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) following its May 5, 2015 hearing titled "Trade and Investment Policies in India, 2014-2015". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 38, February 26, 2015, at Page 10513.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for morning hour, and at 12:00 NOON for legislative business. See, Rep. McCarthy's schedule.

9:00 - 11:45 AM. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host a panel discussion titled "Korea Going Forward". The speakers will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: CSIS, 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will meet to consider HR 2576 [LOC | WW], the "TSCA Modernization Act of 2015", and HR 2583 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015". See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Syntest Technologies v. Cisco Systems, App. Ct. No. 14-1569. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent infringement case involving technology for testing the logic of application specific integrated circuits. Panel H. This case is the second of four on the schedule. See, oral arguments schedule. No live webcast. Archived audio webcast. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:00 AM - 1:00 PM ET. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) First Responder Network Authority. This meeting is in California, but will be webcast. On Wednesday, June 3, the FirstNet Board will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 94, May 15, 2015, at Pages 27928-27929. Free. Open to the public.

2:30 - 3:30 PM. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host a panel discussion titled "Tsai Ing-wen 2016: Taiwan Faces the Future". The main speaker will be Tsai Ing-wen, Chair of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and the DPP's candidate in the Taiwan 2016 Presidential elections. The other speakers will be Bonnie Glaser (CSIS) and Kurt Campbell (The Asia Group). Webcast. See, notice. Location: CSIS, 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding the FCC Incentive Auction Task Force's announcement of results of staff simulations of the initial clearing target optimization procedure proposed in the Auction 1000 Comment PN. This PN is DA 15-606 in AU Docket No. 14-252 and GN Docket No. 12-268. The FCC released it on May 20, 2015. See also, appendix to this PN, and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 100, May 26, 2015, at Pages 30021-30030. Commissioner Pai wrote in a statement that this PN "presents misleading data". Commissioner O'Reilly also wrote a statement criticizing this PN.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. McCarthy's schedule.

Supreme Court conference day. See, 2014-2015 calendar. Closed to the public.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day event hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "7th Annual Trademark Bootcamp". See, notice. Location: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, Alexandria, VA.

9:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a closed meeting to mark up the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016. See, notice. Location: Room HVC-304, Capitol Underground.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion titled "Connecting Talent with Opportunity in the Digital Age". The speakers will be Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Byron Auguste, Allen Blue (LinkedIn), Aneesh Chopra (Hunch Analytics), Thomas Friedman (New York Times), and Susan Lund (McKinsey Global Institute). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 1137 [LOC | WW], the "Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015", or "PATENT Act". See, stories titled "Senators Introduce PATENT Act " and "Summary of S 1137, the PATENT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,722, May 4, 2015. The agenda also again includes consideration of four U.S. District Court nominees: Dale Drozd (USDC/EDCal), Ann Donnelly (USDC/EDNY), Lawrence Vilardo (USDC/WDNY), and LaShann Hall (USDC/EDNY). Live and archived webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Shukh v. Seagate Technology, App. Ct. Nos. 14-1406 and 15-1012. These are appeals from the U.S. District Court (DMinn) in a patent infringement case. Panel K. These cases are the first and second of four on the schedule. See, oral arguments schedule. No live webcast. Archived audio webcast. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 91, May 12, 2015, at Pages 27169-27170. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "A Globally Neutral Net: A Discussion and Comparison of International Approaches and Global Norms for Net Neutrality". The speakers will be Matthew Del Nero (FCC), Erik Stallman (CDT), Nicolas Fetchko (Verizon), Carolina Rossini (Public Knowledge), Jeffrey Campbell (Cisco), and Praveen Goyal (Hogan Lovells). No webcast. No CLE credits. Bring your own lunch. Free. See, notice. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a discussion of the book titled "Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology". The speakers will be Kentaro Toyama (author) and Ryan Gerety (NAF). Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

1:00 PM. The US Telecom will host a webcast presentation titled "DNSSEC – DNS with Authentication, Done Right". The speaker will be Olafur Gudmundsson. See, notice.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. Day one of a two day on site and teleconferenced meeting of the The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE). This meeting will also be listen only teleconferenced. The call in number is 1-800-988-9617. The passcode is 7649366. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 90, May 11, 2015, at Page 26895. Location: General Services Administration, 1800 F St., NW.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Arizona State University (ASU) will host an event titled "Rethinking Higher Education" The speaker will be Ben Nelson (Minerva Project). See, notice. Location: 1776, 12th floor, 1133 15th St., NW.

6:30 - 8:00 PM. The Arizona State University (ASU) and New America Foundation (NAF) will host a debate titled "Resolved: Technology Will Take All Our Jobs". Christine Rosen (The New Atlantis) and Gerry Canavan (Marquette University) will argue for, and James Kotecki (Automated Insights) and Ronald Bailey (Reason) will argue against. See, notice. Location: ASU in Washington DC, 1834 Connecticut Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) First Responder Network Authority in response it its May 5, 2015 notice in the Federal Register (FR). See, FR, Vol. 80, No. 86, May 5, 2015, at Pages 25663-25668.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to three petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order related to its universal service tax and subsidy program related to rural broadband services, titled "Connect America" by the FCC, and to the FCC's Connect America Challenge Process. The FCC adopted the R&O on July 11 , 2014, and released the text on July 14. It is FCC 14-98 in WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58. See, May 11, 2015 FCC Public Notice, and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 97, May 20, 2015, at Page 28928.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) in response to its Public Notice (PN) seeking to refresh the record on a petition for reconsideration filed by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), COMPTEL, and tw telecom regarding the FCC's 2011 pole attachments Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration [144 pages in PDF]. That order is FCC 11-50 in WC Docket No. 07-245 and GN Docket No. 09-51. The FCC adopted and released it on April 7, 2011. The FCC WCB released this latest PN on May 6, 2015. It is DA 15-542 in WC Docket No. 07-245 and GN Docket No. 09-51. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 93, May 14, 2015, at Pages 27626-27627.

Rep. McCarthy's schedule states that "no votes are expected in the House".

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day event hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "7th Annual Trademark Bootcamp". See, notice. Location: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, Alexandria, VA.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics' (RTCA) NextGen Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 99, May 22, 2015, at Pages 29789-29790. Location: RTCA, Suite 910, 1150 18th St., NW.

8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day on site and teleconferenced meeting of the The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE). This meeting will also be listen only teleconferenced. The call in number is 1-800-369-2154. The passcode is 8915613. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 90, May 11, 2015, at Page 26895. Location: DOC, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Illumina v. Ariosa Diagnostics, App. Ct. No. 14-1815. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent infringement case involving digital analysis of multiple samples of DNA for prenatal detection of Downs Syndrome and other conditions. The patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 titled "Multiplex nucleic acid reactions". Panel M. This case is the first of three on the schedule. See, oral arguments schedule. No live webcast. Archived audio webcast. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Circuit Check v. QXQ, App. Ct. No. 15-1155. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (EDWisc) in a patent infringement case involving circuit board testing devices. Panel N. This case is the third of four on the schedule. See, oral arguments schedule. No live webcast. Archived audio webcast. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Internet Caucus will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Governance, ICANN and Congress.SUCKS: Where Is Control Of The Internet Going?". The speakers will be __. Free. Open to the public. Lunch will be served. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "The Microsoft Cases: A Retrospective and Lessons Learned". The speakers will be Randall Weinsten (FTC), Harry First (NYU School of Law), Andrew Gavil (Howard University School of Law), MJ Moltenbrey (Paul Hastings), William Page (University of Florida law school), and Rick Boulton (MiCRA). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice.

Deadline to submit written comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration's (ITA) President's Export Council in advance of its June 10, 2015 meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 93, May 14, 2015, at Page 27632.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's rules that require commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to transmit 911 calls from non-service initiated (NSI) devices. The FCC adopted and released this NPRM on April 1, 2015. It is FCC 15-43 in PS Docket No. 08-51. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 87, May 6, 2015, at Pages 25977-25989.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding eliminating certain common carrier rules from which the FCC has recent forborn. The FCC adopted this NPRM on February 2, 2015, and released it on February 6, 2015. It is FCC 15-33 in WC Docket No. 15-13. See also, notice in the Federal Register Volume 80, No. 87, May 6, 2015, at Pages 25989-25994.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding adding the nation of Mauritius to the parties to the negotiation of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). The original parties were "Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, European Union on behalf of its member states, Hong Kong China, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, and Turkey". Paraguay, Liechtenstein and Uruguay subsequently joined. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 89, May 8, 2015, at Pages 26607-26608.