The FCC’s indecency rules are too vague to survive court challenges or provide a clear definition of what constitutes a violation, said a host of filings from trade associations, broadcasters, affiliates and public interest groups on Wednesday,the deadline for comments on the commission’s indecency public notice. The Family Research Council said the commission has never defined “egregious,” while the Radio Television Digital News Association said the commission’s indecency policy is “unknown and unknowable to broadcasters, journalists, and program producers alike.” The commission must “step back from substituting its own editorial and artistic judgment for that of broadcasters and the creative community,” NAB said. “The Commission should decline to act absent a significant abuse of discretion."
The Federal Maritime Commission released a notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a test case on gender and age discrimination by Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for footwear and apparel. Rack Room, Skiz Imports, and Forever 21 argued that different duty rates for men’s, women’s and children’s footwear and apparel violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. According to the appeals court ruling, the outcome of 171 lawsuits depended on the result of this test case. As had the Court of International Trade in 2012, CAFC decided the companies failed to demonstrate Congressional intent to discriminate, and so failed to prove a violation of the equal protection clause.
A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled Friday that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) must hear a patent case pitting InterDigital Communications against LG Electronics; the ruling overturned the ITC’s earlier decision that the companies enter into arbitration over the dispute, which the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion called “wholly groundless.” InterDigital had filed a complaint with the ITC in 2011 claiming multiple companies, including LG, were infringing its patents on 3G wireless technology; the ITC agreed with LG’s argument that an expired patent licensing agreement between InterDigital and LG required the companies to use an arbitrator. The Federal Circuit ruled that since the licensing agreement between the companies had expired, LG no longer held a license for the 3G technology and therefore could not use the agreement to justify the ITC’s decision. The ITC and LG claimed the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction because it could only decide cases involving the ITC where there was a final determination. That was an “overly restrictive” description of the court’s jurisdiction, Judge Sharon Prost wrote in her majority opinion. Judge William Bryson joined the majority opinion. Judge Alan Lourie said in a dissenting opinion that while he agreed with the majority that LG’s argument for arbitration lacked merit, he did not feel the court had jurisdiction (http://1.usa.gov/195P4H6). An ITC spokeswoman declined comment, noting that the agency doesn’t discuss matters under litigation. An InterDigital spokesman also declined to comment. LG did not respond to a request for comment.
A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled Friday that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) must hear a patent case pitting InterDigital Communications against LG Electronics; the ruling overturned the ITC’s earlier decision that the companies enter into arbitration over the dispute, which the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion called “wholly groundless.” InterDigital had filed a complaint with the ITC in 2011 claiming multiple companies, including LG, were infringing its patents on 3G wireless technology; the ITC agreed with LG’s argument that an expired patent licensing agreement between InterDigital and LG required the companies to use an arbitrator. The Federal Circuit ruled that since the licensing agreement between the companies had expired, LG no longer held a license for the 3G technology and therefore could not use the agreement to justify the ITC’s decision. The ITC and LG claimed the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction because it could only decide cases involving the ITC where there was a final determination. That was an “overly restrictive” description of the court’s jurisdiction, Judge Sharon Prost wrote in her majority opinion. Judge William Bryson joined the majority opinion. Judge Alan Lourie said in a dissenting opinion that while he agreed with the majority that LG’s argument for arbitration lacked merit, he did not feel the court had jurisdiction (http://1.usa.gov/195P4H6). An ITC spokeswoman declined comment, noting that the agency doesn’t discuss matters under litigation. An InterDigital spokesman also declined to comment. LG did not respond to a request for comment.
A three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel ruled Friday that the U.S. International Trade Commission must hear a patent case pitting InterDigital Communications against LG Electronics; the ruling overturned the ITC’s earlier decision that the companies enter into arbitration over the dispute, which the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion called “wholly groundless.” InterDigital had filed a complaint with the ITC in 2011 claiming multiple companies, including LG, were infringing its patents on 3G wireless technology; the ITC agreed with LG’s argument that an expired patent licensing agreement between InterDigital and LG required the companies to use an arbitrator. The Federal Circuit ruled that since the licensing agreement between the companies had expired, LG no longer held a license for the 3G technology and therefore could not use the agreement to justify the ITC’s decision. The ITC and LG claimed the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction because it could only decide cases involving the ITC where there was a final determination. That was an “overly restrictive” description of the court’s jurisdiction, Judge Sharon Prost wrote in her majority opinion. Judge William Bryson joined the majority opinion. Judge Alan Lourie said in a dissenting opinion that while he agreed with the majority that LG’s argument for arbitration lacked merit, he did not feel the court had jurisdiction (http://1.usa.gov/195P4H6). An ITC spokeswoman declined comment, noting that the agency doesn’t discuss matters under litigation. An InterDigital spokesman also declined to comment. LG did not respond to a request for comment.
The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) expressed concern over CBP’s enforcement of the Bureau of Census’ Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) and their compliance with mitigation guidelines in a letter while meeting with CBP officials on April 29.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned an International Trade Commission decision to end a Section 337 patent investigation of infringement by LG so that the case could go to arbitration with patent holder InterDigital. LG had said it held a license for the patented technology at issue, and the commission found that a plausible basis for arbitration. Both the ITC and LG argued that the appeals court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, because termination for arbitration is not listed as subject to appeal under the governing statute, 19 USC 1337. But the appeals court found that termination of a Section 337 investigation for arbitration is in effect an appealable final determination, even though it isn’t enumerated in the statute. Turning to whether LG had grounds to request arbitration, the appeals court found that the portion of the agreement governing the license on 3G technology had expired, so LG had no right to assert a right to arbitration over the license.
President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to begin creating rules to require patent applicants and patent owners to “regularly” update the ownership information on file at PTO when they are involved in PTO proceedings. The rules are targeted at making “real party in interest” (RPI) disclosure a default action. Obama also directed PTO to develop strategies over the next six months to improve patent claim clarity, particularly in software-related patent applications, and train patent examiners on scrutinizing functional claims. The White House said it will build on the roundtables and workshops that PTO, the Department of Justice and the FTC held last year, announcing it would hold a series of “high-profile events” over the next six months aimed at outreach on patent-related issues and policy updates. PTO will also expand its Edison Scholars Program, which brings in scholars to work at the agency for six-month periods, to develop additional research on patent litigation abuse. PTO also unveiled a set of new education and outreach materials aimed at answering questions from the targets of abusive patent litigation (http://1.usa.gov/15yx9EC).
The White House announced a series of executive actions and legislative recommendations Tuesday that a senior administration official said were “specifically designed” to deal with abusive patent litigation. The White House’s actions follow the introduction of four bills in Congress -- including three in the last month -- that would address patent litigation abuse caused by patent assertion entities (PAEs). The discussion draft of a fifth bill, crafted by the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating through industry and legislative circles (WID June 3 p1).