Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/05/17.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:02:32+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,137, May 17, 2005.
May 17, 2005, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,137.
5/16. The Supreme Court issued its 5-4 opinion [73 pages in PDF] in Granholm v. Heald, and consolidated cases, holding that Michigan's and New York's regulatory schemes that permit in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers, but restrict the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so, violate the dormant commerce clause.
5/16. The Supreme Court has held all of its oral arguments for the October Term 2004. The Supreme Court will likely issue opinions in the next several weeks for the cases argued in the October Term 2004 for which it has not yet issued its opinion. It will then recess for the summer. The opening conference of the October Term 2005 is scheduled for September 26, 2005. See, calendar [PDF].
There are still several important technology related cases yet to be decided, including MGM v. Grokster (copyright and P2P systems), NCTA v. Brand X (regulation of broadband internet services), and Merck v. Integra (research exemption to patent infringement).
Copyright. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in MGM v. Grokster, Sup. Ct. No. 04-480, on March 29, 2005. See, story titled "Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in MGM v. Grokster" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,106, March 30, 2005.
Metro Goldwyn Meyer (MGM), and other movie companies, and various record companies, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Grokster, Streamcast and Kazaa alleging copyright infringement, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. They alleged contributory and vicarious infringement. They did not sue individual infringers. Also, professional songwriters and music publishers filed a complaint against the same defendants alleging contributory and vicarious infringement. The two actions were consolidated.
On August 19, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [26 pages in PDF], affirming the District Court. See, story titled "9th Circuit Holds No Vicarious Infringement in Grokster Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 963, August 20, 2004.
Regulatory Classification of Cable Modem Service. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services, Sup. Ct. No. 04-277, and FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, Sup. Ct. No. 04-281, on March 29, 2005. See, story titled "Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,106, March 30, 2005.
This case concerns the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF], adopted on March 14, 2002, that cable modem service is an information service, and that there is no separate offering as a telecommunications service.
The majority of the FCC Commissioners have argued that they are pursuing the policy goals of promoting investment in new facilities, promoting technological innovation, promoting intermodal competition between different providers, and ultimately, promoting the deployment of inexpensive and ubiquitous broadband, and all of the new services that will run over broadband.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [39 pages in PDF] on October 9, 2003 vacating that the FCC's declaratory ruling. See, story titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable Modem Service is an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a Telecommunications Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003.
Research Exemption to Patent Infringement. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Merck KGaA v. Integra LifeSciences I, Sup. Ct. No. 03-1237, on April 20, 2005. This is a drug patent case involving a research exemption to patent infringement. However, it is possible that the Supreme Court will issue an opinion that impacts research in other fields and technologies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued a divided opinion on June 6, 2003. Judge Randall Rader wrote the opinion of the Court, strictly construing Section 271(e)(1) of the Patent Act. Judge Pauline Newman dissented in part, emphasizing the underlying purposes of patent law; she would construe the statute more broadly, and recognize a meaningful common law research exemption. See also, the Court of Appeals' December 3, 2003 errata.
There have also been proposals to amend the Patent Act to provide a more general exemption for research. 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.
Constitutional Authority for Tech Related Criminal Statutes Under the Commerce Clause. There is also Ashcroft v. Raich, Sup. Ct. No. 03-1454. The Supreme Court granted certiorari back on June 28, 2004. It heard oral argument on November 11, 2004.
The facts giving rise to the case do not involve technology. The Supreme Court wrote that the question in this case is "Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for purported personal ``medicinal´´ use or to the distribution of marijuana without charge for such use." See, summary [PDF].
There is no general grant of criminal law making authority in the Constitution. Some federal criminal statutes are based upon the authority of the Commerce Clause, including some technology related criminal statutes. Hence, how the Supreme Court decides this case may affect the constitutional authority of the Congress to enact technology related criminal statutes that are based upon the Commerce Clause.
For example, the Supreme Court has received a petition for writ of certiorari in U.S. v. James Maxwell, Sup. Ct. No. 04-1482. This case involves to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), which addresses pormography on computer disks or computers hard drives.
The Office of the Solicitor General (SG) filed a brief with the Supreme Court in April, 2005, urging the Supreme Court to hold this petition for writ of certiorari until it decides Ashcroft v. Raich on the merits.
State Sovereign Immunity. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, Sup. Ct. No. 04-885, on April 4, 2005. It has not yet heard oral argument. Hence, its opinion is not likely to come until late this year, or next year.
The underlying dispute in this case does not involve technology. This is a bankruptcy case. This case involves the authority of the Congress, under the bankruptcy clause of the Constitution, to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the bankruptcy code. See, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a). Four state colleges run by the state of Virginia challenge the constitutionality of § 106, asserting state sovereign immunity, 11th Amendment immunity, and the 10th Amendment. The Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) ruled against the state colleges.
The argument advanced by the state colleges is similar to those made by the state of Florida when it successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act is an unconstitutional abrogation of state's 11th Amendment immunity. Hence, the Supreme Court's opinion in this case could impact remedies for enforcing intellectual property rights.
See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in State Sovereign Immunity Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,109, April 5, 2005.
The Senate will meet at 9:45 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 3, the "Transportation Equity Act".
10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Trade will hold a hearing on the future of the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
10:00 AM. The House Science Committee will meet to mark up two bills, including HR __, a bill to establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to give scholarships to prepare students for careers in the National Weather Service and in marine research, atmospheric research and satellite programs. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Intellectual Property Theft in China". The witnesses will be Victoria Espinel (acting Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property), Ted Fishman (author and journalist, China, Inc.), Myron Brilliant (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), and Eric Smith (International Intellectual Property Alliance). Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. See, notice [PDF]. Location: Rooom 2141, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Intellectual Property Theft in Russia". The witnesses will be Victoria Espinel (acting Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property), Bonnie Richardson (Motion Picture Association of America), Matt Gerson (Universal Music Group), and Eric Smith (International Intellectual Property Alliance). Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. See, notice [PDF]. Location: Rooom 2141, Rayburn Building.
12:01 AM. The Business Software Alliance (BSA) will release a study of international software piracy. For more information, contact Debbi Mayster at 202 530-5132 or debbim at bsa dot org or Laura Brinker at 202 715-1540 or laura dot brinker at dittus dot com.
2:00 PM. The Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight will hold a hearing titled "Blowing the Cover on the Stealth Tax: Exposing the Individual AMT". There are many pending bills to modify or repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). See for example, HR 703, the "AMT Middle Class Fairness Act of 2005" and HR 1186, the "Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act of 2005". Location: Room 628, Dirksen Building.
5/16. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Uzan v. Motorola,. In this case, Motorola and Nokia filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Kemal Uzan, and other Turkish defendants, alleging, among other things, common law fraud, promissory fraud, and civil conspiracy to defraud, in connection with their borrowing from Motorola and Nokia to obtain telecommunications equipment.
The District Court held that the defendants are liable for common law fraud, promissory fraud, and civil conspiracy to defraud, and awarded over $4 Billion in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and interest. The District Court also imposed a constructive trust over certain stock.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) rejected the Uzans' arguments on appeal regarding lack of personal jurisdiction and other procedural issues. The Appeals Court vacated and remanded the punitive damages portion of the award, as well as the imposition of a constructive trust over stock. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's findings of fact, determination of liability, and award of over $2 Billion in compensatory damages. See, errata opinion [42 pages in PDF] of December 3, 2004.
The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari lets stand the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
This case is Sup. Ct. No. 04-1255. See, Order List [17 pages in PDF], at page 15.
See also, story titled "2nd Circuit Rules in Motorola v. Uzan" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,008, November 1, 2004; story titled "Judge Awards Motorola $4,265,793,811.32 From Turkish Telecom Deadbeats" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 709, August 1, 2003; and story titled "Motorola & Nokia Sue Turkish Cellular Company for RICO Violations and Computer Hacking" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 357, January 30, 2002.
5/16. The Supreme Court announced that it "will take a recess from Monday, May 16, 2005, until Monday, May 23, 2005." See, Order List [17 pages in PDF], at page 17.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 501
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2252
 v. 
 v. 
 § 106
 § 106
 v. 
 v.