Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2007/12/05.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:05:16+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,683, December 5, 2007.
December 5, 2007, Alert No. 1,683.
12/5. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), and others introduced HR 4279, the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007" or PRO IP Act.
This is a 69 page bill that largely addresses remedies for infringement and counterfeiting and the organization and funding of government efforts to enforce intellectual property rights.
Title I of the bill contains numerous procedural changes to civil copyright and trademark law.
It provides a harmless error exception in the registration requirement for civil actions for copyright infringement. It amends 17 U.S.C. § 410 to provide that "A certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of section 411 and section 412 regardless of any inaccurate information contained in the certificate, unless ... the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate", and would have caused the Copyright Office to refuse registration if it had known.
It amends 17 U.S.C. § 503(a), which provides for pretrial impounding of copies, phonorecords, and other articles of infringement. The bill would add the clause "and of records documenting the manufacture, sale, or receipt of things involved in such violation". This changes the character § 503(a). It is currently remedial. It allows things to be seized at the outset of an action that could be awarded to the copyright holder upon final judgment. The bill would make § 503(a) both a remedial and a pretrial discovery and preservation of evidence provision.
The bill revises the method of computation of statutory damages in copyright infringement actions. It also amends trademark law to provide for treble damages in counterfeiting cases. It also amends trademark law to increase statutory damages for counterfeiting.
Title I also contains substantive changes. The bill would amend 17 U.S.C. § 602 to cover both importation and exportation of copies and phonorecords. It currently applies only to importation. The bill contains a parallel section to cover exportation of goods containing infringing marks.
Title II of the bill strengthens both copyright and trademark criminal and civil procedure with respect to forfeiture, destruction, and restitution.
Titles III, IV and V of the bill pertain to the organization of government activities and operations related to intellectual property rights enforcement.
Title III would create in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) an "Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative". The head of this office would be appointed by the Senate with the advice and consent of the Senate. It further specifies that the Senate Judiciary Committee would have jurisdiction over this nomination. This person would coordinate intellectual property enforcement efforts of the federal government.
The bill also requires this IP Enforcement Representative to submit every three years a "joint strategic plan" to the President and the Congress.
Title IV requires the head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in consultation with the Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, to appoint ten intellectual property attaches to serve in embassies or other diplomatic missions.
Title VI requires the Department of Justice to establish in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General a new "Intellectual Property Enforcement Division". Those functions of the Criminal Division's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) that relate to the enforcement of criminal laws relating to the protection of intellectual property rights and trade secrets would be transferred to this new division.
Title VI also provides for additional personnel and funding for the DOJ, and for grants to state and local governments.
The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) issued a release that describes the bill, and includes quotations of various of its sponsors.
Rep. Conyers stated in this release that "This legislation is an important and necessary step in the fight to maintain our competitive edge in a global marketplace ... By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society."
This release also states that the HJC's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing next week.
This bill contains some provisions that are also in S 2317 [LOC | WW], the "Intellectual Property Enforcement Act", which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced on November 7, 2007. See, story titled "Senators Leahy and Cornyn Introduce Intellectual Property Enforcement Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,672, November 8, 2007.
Reaction. John Engler, head of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), stated in a release that "In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, protection of U.S. intellectual property is vital for the long-term growth of American industry ... But it is also important for the health, safety and welfare of every American consumer. From pharmaceuticals to brake pads to fuse boxes, Americans have a right to safe and legitimate products -- not substandard fakes."
David Israelite, head of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), stated in a release that "Music publishers and their songwriting partners are increasingly concerned about the theft of the songs they worked so hard to create. They need to be fairly compensated for their efforts so they can continue doing what they do best -- making great songs the world enjoys."
Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "Our intellectual property laws should penalize pirates, not pioneers. PROIPA moves us in the wrong direction. Rather than increasing the enforcement of IP rights against piracy and counterfeiting at home and abroad, aspects of PROIPA increase the risk that innovative U.S. businesses will be baselessly persecuted and subjected to frivolous litigation. We look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee and all stakeholders to achieve legislation that protects U.S. IP rights and the public from infringement and counterfeiting, rather than encouraging IP trolls to play the litigation lottery."
Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge, stated in a release that "We remain concerned that several provisions in this bill could have harmful, if unintended, consequences that would harm consumers. The bill rightly targets enforcement of copyright law against commercial infringers, but some of these same enforcement provisions are likely to hurt ordinary consumers. Seizing expensive manufacturing equipment used for large-scale infringement from a commercial pirate may be appropriate. Seizing a family’s general-purpose computer in a download case, as this bill would allow, is not appropriate."
12/3. The Supreme Court issued an order in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, a case regarding the patent exhaustion doctrine. See, Orders List [11 pages in PDF] at page 1, and docket.
The Supreme Court wrote only that "The motion of petitioners for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal is granted."
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 25, 2007. Last month, the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for January 16, 2008.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [31 pages in PDF] under review on July 7, 2006.
The question presented is "Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent’s patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel’s subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners."
See, stories titled "Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court to Take Case Regarding Patent Exhaustion Doctrine" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,629, August 28, 2007, and "Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General Brief in Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,566, April 17, 2007.
See also, amicus brief [PDF] of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), amicus brief [PDF] of the Consumers Union, Public Knowledge and Electronic Frontier Foundation, amicus brief [PDF] of the Biotechnology Industry Association, and amicus brief [PDF] of Dell, Cisco, HP, and eBay.
Dell and other technology companies wrote in their brief that "The patent exhaustion doctrine is a long-settled limitation on patent owner rights that advances the purposes of the patent act efficiently while avoiding harmful consequences. It protects the patent owner's right to compensation for the use of its invention by others while at the same time providing a clear standard precluding the assertion of infringement claims against those who purchase patented articles. The doctrine holds that upon the purchase of an article in an authorized sale -- from either the patentee or a licensee authorized by the patentee to make and sell the article -- the patentee's rights with respect to that article are exhausted."
Dell added that "The Federal Circuit in this case abandoned the doctrine of patent exhaustion as it has been defined by this Court for over a century."
12/3. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Perfect 10 v. CCBill, a case regarding liability of web site operators and payments processors for copyright infringement, and related actions, of their customers. See, Orders List [11 pages in PDF] at page 3 and docket.
This lets stand the March 29, 2007, opinion [26 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir).
Perfect 10 publishes a magazine and web site with pictures of women. It has registered the copyrights for these pictures. Cavecreek Wholesale Internet Exchange (CWIE) provides web site hosting services to others. CCBill, a related company, allows consumers to use credit cards or checks to pay for subscriptions or memberships to web sites. Customers of CWIE and CCBill infringed the copyrights in photographs of Perfect 10 and others.
Perfect 10 filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against CWIE and CCBill alleging copyright infringement, as well as violation of trademark, state unfair competition, false advertising and right of publicity laws.
The District Court held, among other things, that CWIE and CCBill are immune from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512, and that CCBill and CWIE are immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims under the interactive computer service immunity provision codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
With respect to Section 512, it remanded for a determination by the District Court of whether CCBill and CWIE reasonably implemented a policy under § 512(i)(1)(A) based on its treatment of non-party copyright holders.
With respect to Section 230, it noted that this section provides that it does not "limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property". The Court of Appeals wrote that this means that Section 230 "does not clothe service providers in immunity" from laws pertaining to intellectual property. However, it added that this only applies to federal intellectual property laws. Hence, Section 230 provides CWIE and CCBill with immunity from Perfect 10's state law claims.
This case is Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, et al., Supreme Court of the United States, Sup. Ct. No. 07-266, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos.. 04-57143 and 04-57207.
12/3. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Eichorn v. AT&T, an ERISA case brought by employees of a former unit of AT&T. See, Orders List [11 pages in PDF] at page 8, and docket.
This lets stand the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir). The Court of Appeals issued its opinion [31 pages in PDF] on May 2, 2007, affirming the District Court's summary judgment for AT&T and the other defendants.
The is the second time that the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in this case. The Court of Appeals issued an opinion on April 23, 2001, which is reported at 248 F.3d 131. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in an order reported at 534 U.S. 1014. See also, story titled "Antitrust" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 173, April 25, 2001.
This case is Kurt Eichorn, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Supreme Court of the United States, Sup. Ct. No. 07-280, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
12/3. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in McDermott v. Boehner. See, Orders List [11 pages in PDF] at page 8. This lets stand the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) which previously affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court (DC), which held that Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) violated the wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2511.
Rep. McDermott disclosed the contents of an intercepted cell phone call. The persons who intercepted the call long ago pled guilty to criminal wiretap charges. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), a party to the intercepted conversation, brought the present civil action against Rep. McDermott.
See, Court of Appeals' en banc opinion [32 pages in PDF] of May 1, 2007, and story titled "The District Court District Court Holds Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 964, August 23, 2004.
See also, Court of Appeals opinion [23 pages in PDF] of March 28, 2006, and story titled "Court of Appeals Holds that Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,339, March 30, 2006.
And see, story titled "The District Court District Court Holds Rep. McDermott Violated Wiretap Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 964, August 23, 2004.
This case is James McDermott v. John Boehner, Sup. Ct. No. 07-439, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. No. 04-7203. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 98cv00594.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM. It will consider several non-technology related items. See, Rep. Hoyer's daily calendar.
The Senate will meet at 10:30 AM. It will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to HR 3996 [LOC | WW], the "Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007".
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Voluntary Voting System Guidelines" or "VVSG". At 9:15 - 10:15 AM there will be a panel titled "VVSG in Context". The speakers will be Caroline Hunter (EAC), Barbara Guttman (NIST), and Sharon Laskowski (NIST). At 10:20 - 11:20 AM there will be a panel titled "Effect of VVSG on Cost and Innovation". The speakers will be Alan Dechert (Open Voting Consortium), David Beirne (Election Technology Council), and Stefan Popoveniuc (PunchScan). At 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM there will be a panel titled "New metrics and standards in the VVSG". The speakers will be Alec Yasinsac (Florida State University), Ed Smith (Sequoia Voting Systems), and Jim Dickson (AAPD). At 12:45 - 1:45 PM there will be a panel titled "Beyond VVSG: Next steps". The speakers will be Rebecca Mercuri, Lillie Coney (EPIC), and David Chaum. See, notice and agenda and web page for registering and ordering a box lunch. Location: ITIF, 1250 I St., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 2402 [LOC | WW], the "FISA Intelligence Surveillance Substitution Act of 2007". The agenda also includes consideration three internet related bills: S 1829 [LOC | WW], the "Protect Our Children First Act of 2007", S 431 [LOC | WW], the "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007", and S 2344 [LOC | WW], the "Internet Safety Education Act of 2007". The agenda also includes consideration of S 352 [LOC | WW], the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007", S 344 [LOC | WW], a bill to require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open events, except in cases where it would violated the due process rights of a party, and S 1638 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007". The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on HR 3396 [LOC | WW], the "Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act". See, notice. Location: Room 2237, Rayburn Building.
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice. Location: Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.
Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar states that "no votes are expected in the House". See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week.
9:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Copyright Alliance (CA) will host a half day event titled "Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium". Breakfast will be served from 8:00 AM. The program will begin at 9:00 AM. Patrick Ross (CA Executive Director) will speak. Rep. Rep. Keller (R-FL) is scheduled to give the keynote address. The first panel will begin at 10:00 AM. The speakers will be Warren Arbogast (Boulder Management Group), Michael Einhorn (Consor), James Gibson (University of Richmond School of Law), Peter Jaszi (American University Law School), and Michael Ryan (George Washington University Law School). The moderator will be Andrew Noyes (National Journal's Technology Daily). The second panel will begin at 11:20 AM. The speakers will be Patricia Aufderheide (American University), Cheryl Elzy (Illinois State University), Lee Hollaar (University of Utah), Nathan Perry (University of Utah), Marybeth Peters (Register of Copyrights). The moderator will be Paul Sweeting (ContentAgenda). See, notice and agenda. Location: George Washington University, Jack Morton Auditorium, Media and Public Affairs Building, 805 21st St., NW.
Day one of a two day workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) titled "Security in Numbers: SSNs and ID Theft". See, workshop web site. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
2:00 PM. Deadline to file amicus briefs on the merits in support of the respondent (LG Electronics) with the Supreme Court of the US (SCUS) in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, a patent infringement case. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Exhaustion Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,647, September 27, 2007.
Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Royalty Judges regarding their proposed regulations that set the rates and terms for the use of sound recordings in transmissions made by new subscription services and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the period commencing from the inception of the new subscription service through December 31, 2010. See, notice in the Federal Register: November 9, 2007 Vol. 72, No. 217, at Pages 63532-63535.
? The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet.
12/4. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion in Top Tobacco v. North Atlantic Trading Company, a trademark case involving likelihood of confusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court for North Atlantic Trading Company. Both companies sell tobacco for people who roll their own cigarettes. Both use the word "top" on the cans in which the tobacco is sold. However, the courts held that consumers would not confuse the two products because the word "top" is used in different senses. One company uses it to refer to the top of its can, which keeps the tobacco fresh. The other uses it to refer to a spinning top. This case is Top Tobacco L.P., et al. v. North Atlantic Trading Company, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-1244.
12/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued an amended opinion [47 pages in PDF] in Perfect 10 v. Amazon and Perfect 10 v. Google.
12/4. President Bush nominated John Sullivan to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce. See, White House release and release. He is currently the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. He previously worked for the law firm of Mayer Brown. If confirmed by the Senate he would replace David Sampson, who has resigned.
12/4. Victoria Espinel joined Romulus Global Issues Management as Senior Counselor for Intellectual Property and Innovation. Espinel previously worked for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) as Assistant USTR for Intellectual Property and Innovation when Robert Zoellick was the USTR. See, Romulus release. She will also work for George Mason University (GMU) School of Law as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Spring 2008 semester, when will teach a course titled "International Trade" and a seminar titled "International Intellectual Property and Policy". See, GMU release. In addition, Chris Moore joined Romulus Global Issues Management as Executive Vice President. Moore was previously Assistant USTR for China Affairs.
12/3. President Bush named Daniel Price to be Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will also continue to be Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs. See, White House release.
11/29. Peter Bresnan, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Deputy Director of Enforcement, will leave the SEC on December 5, 2007. He will join the Washington DC office of the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. He was the SEC's lead counsel in its case against WorldCom. See, SEC release and STB release.

References: § 410
 § 503
 § 503
 § 503
 § 602
 v. 
 v. 
 § 512
 § 230
 § 512
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2511
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.