Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/06/14.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:51:11+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,153, June 14, 2005.
June 14, 2005, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,153.
6/13. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Media General v. FCC, and related proceeding on petitions for writs of certiorari. This denial lets stand the opinion [213 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) in Prometheus v. FCC, which overturned some of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) media ownership rules.
The FCC announced its a Report and Order revising its media ownership rules on June 2, 2003. See, story titled "FCC Announces Revisions to Media Ownership Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 672, June 3, 2003. The FCC released the Report and Order on July 2, 2003. See, story titled "FCC Releases Media Ownership Order and NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 692, July 7, 2003. On June 24, 2004 the Court of Appeals issued its opinion. See, story titled "3rd Circuit Rules in Media Ownership Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 930, July 1, 2004.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated in a release [PDF] that "I am now looking forward to working with all of my colleagues as we reevaluate our media ownership rules consistent with the Third Circuit's guidance and our statutory obligations."
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein (at right) stated in a release [PDF] that "This decision is a rare victory for the public over some of the most powerful corporations in America. The American public is concerned about concentration in the media, and our court system has rightly responded. The court's decision puts the issue of media consolidation right back in the FCC's hands and gives us an opportunity for a fresh start, so we better get it right this time. We need to be very careful because once we allow greater media concentration, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can't let a handful of media giants dominate the discourse in any community."
Adelstein added that "Learning from the backlash against the rules last time, we now need to involve the public and Congress more fully in our deliberations. We need to hold public hearings across the country, and call for more studies from experts and academics. I look forward to working with Chairman Martin and all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to fix the rules so they comply with the court order. We need a comprehensive response that recognizes our media ownership rules work together to prevent a single owner from gaining too much control over what the American people see, hear and read."
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stated in a release [PDF] that "The ball is clearly back in the Commission’s court. The FCC has a fresh opportunity now to come up with a set of rules to encourage localism, competition, and diversity in our media. If we work together, conduct outreach to engage the American people, and gather a more complete record, I am confident of our ability to craft rules that will withstand judicial scrutiny and the scrutiny of the American people. I am ready to roll up my sleeves and work with my colleagues to get the job done."
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Media General, Inc. v. FCC, No. 04-1020, NAB v. FCC, No. 04-1033, Tribune v. FCC, No. 04-1036, Newspaper Association of America v. FCC, No. 04-1045, FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 04-1168, and Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC, No. 04-1177. See, Order List [11 pages in PDF].
6/13. The Supreme Court issued its opinion [17 pages in PDF] in Merck KGaA v. Integra LifeSciences I, vacating the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). This is a case regarding the limited statutory exemption to patent infringement, codified at 35 U. S. C. §271(e)(1), for research using DNA and genetic manipulation techniques. The Court issued a short opinion that merely construed the statute, without engaging in any discussion of the common law research exemption, or the policy implications of allowing research exemptions.
For a detailed summary of the facts of the case, the proceedings in the District Court and Court of Appeals, and the issues involved, see story titled "Supreme Court Takes Case Involving Research Exemption to Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,053, January 11, 2005.
This was a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia. He approached this solely as a matter of interpretation of the literal language of the statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271. There is nothing in this opinion about the policy or purposes of research exemptions -- not even a discussion of promoting new drug research. There is nothing about a common law research exemption. There is nothing about the October 3, 2002 opinion of the Federal Circuit in Madey v. Duke, 307 F.3d 1351. No other Justices wrote concurring or dissenting opinions.
Justice Scalia wrote at the outset that "This case presents the question whether uses of patented inventions in preclinical research, the results of which are not ultimately included in a submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are exempted from infringement by 35 U. S. C. §271(e)(1)."
35 U.S.C. § 271(a) contains the general prohibition of patent infringement. It provides that "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
Integra is the owner of the patents in suit, which relate to a short tri-peptide segment of fibronectin having the sequence Arg-Gly-Asp, also known simply as "RGD peptide". The RGD peptide sequence promotes cell adhesion to substrates in culture and in vivo. The RGD sequence promotes this beneficial cell adhesion by interacting with avß3 receptors on cell surface proteins called integrins.
Merck provided funding for angiogenesis research conducted by David Cheresh at the Scripps Research Institute.
Integra and other plaintiffs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDCal) against Merck, Cheresh and Scripps, alleging patent infringement in connection with use of the RGD peptide in the experiments related to angiogenesis.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under §271(e)(1) as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the experiments will produce the types of information that are relevant to an investigational new drug application (IND) or new drug applications (NDA) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.
6/13. The Supreme Court issued six opinions and an Order List [11 pages in PDF]. The Court has yet to issue its opinions in MGM v. Grokster (regarding copyright and P2P systems), and NCTA v. Brand X (regarding regulation of broadband internet services).
The Court announced that "The Court will take a recess from Monday, June 13, 2005, until Monday, June 20, 2005."
The Court denied certiorari in EMR Network v. FCC. This lets stand the December 7, 2004 opinion [8 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) regarding environmental impacts of FCC decisions. EMR Network filed a petition asking the FCC to initiate an inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address nonthermal effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation. The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) rejected EMR's initial petition; EMR submitted further materials; and, the FCC issued an order rejecting EMR's petition. EMR then filed a petition for review, arguing that the FCC violated § 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The Court of Appeals rejected the petition for review. It reviewed the actions of the FCC, the language of the NEPA, and other court cases construing the NEPA, and concluded that the FCC did not violated the NEPA. The Appeals Court case number is 03-1336. The Supreme Court number is 04-1515. See, Order List [11 pages in PDF] at page 4.
6/13. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [38 pages in PDF] in Constantine v. George Mason University, a case in which the Court of Appeals rejected the state of Virginia's assertion of 11th Amendment immunity to suit under the ADA and Section 1983.
The facts of this case do not involve technology. However, the opinion contains a long analysis of 11th Amendment immunity, which is involved in several areas of technology related law. The opinion, for example, relies upon College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), an intellectual property case, in its discussion of waiver of 11th Amendment immunity. See also, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
Carin Constantine is a law student at George Mason University (GMU) who failed an examination in a course on Constitutional law. She states that she had a headache. She asserts that GMU's failure to allow her retake the exam upon more favorable terms violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Moreover, she wrote a critical article in a law student newspaper. So, she further asserts that actions taken by GMU, a state university, violated her First Amendment rights.
Constantine filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDVa) against GMU, her Constitutional law professor (Nelson Lund), and other individuals associated with GMU, alleging First Amendment retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and disability discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
GMU (and the other defendants) asserted 11th Amendment immunity, and also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court (Judge Hilton presiding) dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Court of Appeals (with Judge Dennis Shedd writing for the Court) reversed. The 11th Amendment does not bar this suit. Moreover, the complaint does state claims for violation of the ADA and § 1983. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded.
6/13. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [79 pages in PDF] titled "Information Security: Emerging Cybersecurity Issues Threaten Federal Information Systems". It finds that "many agencies have not fully addressed the risks of emerging cybersecurity threats", such as spam, phishing and spyware.
The report finds that "Spam, phishing, and spyware pose security risks to federal information systems. Spam is a problem not only because of the enormous resources it demands, but also because it now serves as a means for other types of attack. Phishing can lead to identity theft and loss of sensitive information; it can easily result in reduced trust in and therefore use of electronic government services, thereby reducing the efficiencies that such services offer."
The report states that "Phishers have targeted federal entities such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Spyware threatens the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of federal information systems by capturing and releasing sensitive data, making unauthorized changes to systems, decreasing system performance, and possibly creating new system vulnerabilities, all without the user’s knowledge or consent. The blending of these threats creates additional risks that cannot be easily mitigated with currently available tools."
The report finds that "many agencies have not fully addressed the risks of emerging cybersecurity threats as part of their required agencywide information security programs, which include performing periodic assessments of risk; implementing security controls commensurate with the identified risk; ensuring security-awareness training for agency personnel; and implementing procedures for detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents."
It also adds that "several agencies reported that current enterprise tools to address emerging cybersecurity threats are immature and therefore impede efforts to effectively detect, prevent, remove, and analyze incidents. For example, although most agencies (20 of 24) reported implementing agencywide approaches to mitigating spam, some agencies reported concerns that these tools could not be relied upon to accurately distinguish spam from desired e-mails."
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will begin consideration of HR 2862, the "Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006". See, Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:45 AM. It will resume consideration of the nomination of Thomas Griffith to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. It will then resume consideration of HR 6, the energy bill.
The Supreme Court is in recess until Monday, June 20. See, Order List [11 pages in PDF].
10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the Bush administration's program titled "Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy" or "STOP". The witnesses will be Jon Dudas (Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office), Victoria Espinel (acting Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property), Daniel Baldwin (acting Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Strategic Trade, U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Laura Parsky (Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice), Loren Yager (General Accounting Office), Brad Huther (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Franklin Vargo (National Association of Manufacturers), Jeffrey Evans (P/CEO of The Will-Burt Company). See, notice. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a business meeting to consider legislation implementing the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. Location: Room 628, Dirksen Building.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will continue its consideration of HR 2862, the "Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006". It will also begin consideration of HR 2863, the "Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006". See, Republican Whip Notice.
10:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will hold an "Informal Markup of Implementing Proposal of H.R. ____, the "Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act" Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes Are Undermining U.S. Jobs, Innovation, and Consumer Safety". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
9:30 AM. There will be a news conference titled "US-Brazil Trade Relations". For more information, call John Proctor at Direct Communications Group at 202 272-2179. Location: Zenger Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
6:00 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Debrea Terwilliger at 202 383-3349 or debrea dot terwilliger at wbklaw law com or 202-393-3000. Location: Topaz Hotel, Zen Den, 1733 N St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments, and notices of intent to participate, to the Copyright Office in response to its proposed rules containing a proposed settlement of royalty rates for the retransmission of digital over the air television broadcast signals by satellite carriers under the statutory license. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 17, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 94, at Pages 28231 - 28233.
The Supreme Court will return from recess. See, Order List [11 pages in PDF].
The annual U.S.-EU Summit will take place. See, White House release. Location: Washington DC.
10:00 AM. Kevin Ring (author of Scalia Dissents : Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice), Herman Schwartz (American University Law School) and Mark Tushnet (Georgetown University Law School) will participate in a panel discussion regarding Supreme Court developments. Location: Zenger Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
12:30 PM. Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, will give a luncheon address. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [15 pages in PDF] regarding implementation of the satellite broadcast carriage requirements in the noncontiguous states, as required by Section 210 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA). The FCC adopted this NPRM at its April 29, 2005 meeting. This NPRM is FCC 05-92 in MB Docket No. 05-181. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 20, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 97, at Pages 29252-29253.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting titled "Current Status of FCC Proceedings Involving VOIP and other IP Enabled Services". The speaker will be Thomas Navin, Chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. The FCC's proceedings are titled "In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services" (WC Docket No. 04-36), and "E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers" (WC Docket No. 05-196). For more information, contact Catherine Bohigian at catherine.bohigian@fcc.gov or Frank Lloyd at flloyd@mintz.com. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) states that this is a meeting of its Cable Practice Committee, and requests an RSVP to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org. Location: Mintz Levin, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW , 9th Floor.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §271
 § 271
 v. 
 §271
 § 271
 §271
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102
 § 4332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 504
 § 1983