An appeals judge hearing oral arguments in online TV retransmission service FilmOn X’s appeal of a preliminary injunction brought by broadcasters in California suggested that if broadcasters want existing copyright policy changed, they should look to Congress rather than the courts. “In the end, isn’t this really a problem for Congress?” asked Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in a recording on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals website. He was speaking to Baker Marquardt attorney Ryan Baker, who represented FilmOn X -- formerly Aereokiller. Broadcasters sought the injunction against FilmOn for retransmitting Los Angeles broadcast TV stations over the Internet without their consent, which the broadcasters said violates copyright law. The injunction was granted in a U.S. District Court in California, but appealed by FilmOn. “So long as we can determine that your client has come within the terms of existing copyright act, that’s enough,” O'Scannlain told Baker Tuesday.
An appeals judge hearing oral arguments in online TV retransmission service FilmOn X’s appeal of a preliminary injunction brought by broadcasters in California suggested that if broadcasters want existing copyright policy changed, they should look to Congress rather than the courts. “In the end, isn’t this really a problem for Congress?” asked Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in a recording on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals website. He was speaking to Baker Marquardt attorney Ryan Baker, who represented FilmOn X -- formerly Aereokiller. Broadcasters sought the injunction against FilmOn for retransmitting Los Angeles broadcast TV stations over the Internet without their consent, which the broadcasters said violates copyright law. The injunction was granted in a U.S. District Court in California, but appealed by FilmOn. “So long as we can determine that your client has come within the terms of existing copyright act, that’s enough,” O'Scannlain told Baker Tuesday.
CBP’s ability to consistently enforce Importer Security Filing (ISF) among different ports is one of several major worries for the agency’s new stricter enforcement policy on ISF, said surety company Roanoke Trade in an Aug. 27 document. According to Roanoke, CBP has said it will not impose uniformity across the ports for ISF hold and liquidated damages outside of the directions already given to the ports from CBP headquarters. The document, “ISF Enforcement Summary,” addresses ISF enforcement among ports and CBP policies on liquidated damages claims, and lays out industry concerns, CBP responses, and Roanoke’s own input as a surety.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on Aug. 19 the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of an antidumping duty lawsuit on steel nails from China. The lower court had declined to rule on Itochu Building Products’ challenge to the revocation date for four types of nails, citing a failure to fully argue its case before Commerce. Itochu had only argued for an earlier revocation date before the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review, and not in the run-up to the final results, so it didn’t exhaust its administrative remedies, CIT had said (see 12092127). But the appeals court reversed on Aug. 19, because submitting comments after Commerce had already rejected Itochu’s arguments at the preliminary stage would have served no purpose, and actually would have harmed the company.
The Central California U.S. District Court’s $8 million judgment against customs broker Celco Customs Service for trademark infringement will move forward, after Judge Margaret Morrow denied the company’s final defenses in an Aug. 9 order. A jury had decided the penalty after finding Celco infringed trademarks held by Coach when it acted as a customs broker on entries of counterfeit handbags and wallets. But Judge Morrow vacated an April judgment because Celco never got a chance to present its “affirmative defenses.” Now having heard Celco’s arguments, the court said the defenses are invalid because the jury found Celco’s trademark violations to be willful. Celco will now file post-trial motions asking the judge to throw out the jury’s verdict based on improper infringement findings and an excessive penalty amount, its attorney said.
The U.S. International Trade Commission issued an injunction Aug. 9 on Samsung mobile devices that violated two Apple patents. The ITC vote followed a hearing earlier that same day at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There, Apple told a three-judge panel that upholding a lower court’s decision not to ban 26 Samsung mobile devices a San Jose federal jury found last year violated six Apple patents would be a “fundamental change” to U.S. patent law. Apple also faced a hearing at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan, in connection with the ruling last month that Apple violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to "eliminate retail competition and raise the prices for e-books."
The U.S. International Trade Commission issued an injunction after our deadline Friday on Samsung mobile devices that violated two Apple patents. The full details of the ban, which will take place within 60 days of Friday’s ruling, were not yet available. The ITC vote followed a hearing earlier Friday at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There, Apple told a three-judge panel that upholding a lower court’s decision not to ban 26 Samsung mobile devices a San Jose federal jury found last year violated six Apple patents would be a “fundamental change” to U.S. patent law. Apple also faced a hearing at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan, in connection with the ruling last month that Apple violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to “eliminate retail competition and raise the prices for e-books.” (See separate report in this issue.)
The U.S. International Trade Commission issued an injunction after our deadline Friday on Samsung mobile devices that violated two Apple patents. The full details of the ban, which will take place within 60 days of Friday’s ruling, were not yet available. The ITC vote followed a hearing earlier Friday at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There, Apple told a three-judge panel that upholding a lower court’s decision not to ban 26 Samsung mobile devices a San Jose federal jury found last year violated six Apple patents would be a “fundamental change” to U.S. patent law. Apple also faced a hearing at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan, in connection with the ruling last month that Apple violated antitrust laws by conspiring with publishers to “eliminate retail competition and raise the prices for e-books."
The Court of International Trade will be moving its document filing and viewing system to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database on Oct. 1, according to a notice posted to its website and sent to current CM/ECF users. PACER is already used by all federal district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts. Current users of PACER will not have to re-register, but those without PACER accounts will have to get one (here).
The U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) decision to overturn an International Trade Commission ruling surprised the patent litigation community, members of which said the decision could have substantial implications for cases on standard essential patents (SEPs) at the ITC. But lawyers said the case was unlikely to have a major impact on the bulk of the ITC's caseload, or on its larger role in patent litigation. They said the ban would likewise not impact two connected patent disputes between Apple and Samsung that are set to advance Aug. 9. Industry analysts told us the USTR decision would create more uncertainty in the industry, but wouldn't overwhelmingly affect any one company's business model.