Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2014/06/03.asp
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 03:53:41
Document Index: 170298635

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§271', '§271', '§ 112', '§ 114', '§ 114', '§ 112']

TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,666, June 3, 2014.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Alert No. 2,666.
Supreme Court Rules in Limelight v. Akamai on Inducement of Patent Infringement
6/2. The Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, Sup. Ct. No. 12-786, reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).
This case involves whether a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be so held liable. The Court of Appeals held in its August 31, 2012 opinion that a defendant could be so held liable. Hence, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Justice Sam Alito (at right) wrote a short opinion for a unanimous Court. No Justice wrote a concurring opinion.
The Court wrote that "liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement" and inducement liability may arise if, but only if, there is direct infringement.
The Court continued that "The Federal Circuit's analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent. A method patent claims a number of steps; under this Court's case law, the patent is not infringed unless all the steps are carried out. ... This principle follows ineluctably from what a patent is: the conferral of rights in a particular claimed set of elements."
The Supreme Court also wrote that "The Federal Circuit's contrary view would deprive §271(b) of ascertainable standards. If a defendant can be held liable under §271(b) for inducing conduct that does not constitute infringement, then how can a court assess when a patent holder’s rights have been invaded? What if a defendant pays another to perform just one step of a 12-step process, and no one performs the other steps, but that one step can be viewed as the most important step in the process? In that case the defendant has not encouraged infringement, but no principled reason prevents him from being held liable for inducement under the Federal Circuit's reasoning, which permits inducement liability when fewer than all of a method’s steps have been performed within the meaning of the patent. The decision below would require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law: one for liability for direct infringement, and one for liability for inducement."
Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) stated in a release that "We are pleased that the Supreme Court adopted much of the reasoning urged by CEA, CTIA and MetroPCS in our joint amicus brief. With its decision, the court avoided muddling the current standard for patent law and creating a zone of uncertainty for innovators and entrepreneurs who would no longer be sure what was or was not infringing conduct. In order to fulfill its constitutional function of promoting innovation, patent law must be clear, consistent and understandable. We commend the Supreme Court for setting aside the lower court decision and restoring common sense to patent infringement law."
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 30, 2014. See, transcript.
This case is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-786, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, and 2009-1417. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, D.C. Nos. 06-CV-11109 and 06-CV-11585.
Supreme Court Rules in Nautilus v. Biosig on Patent Indefiniteness
6/2. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Sup. Ct. No. 13-369, vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).
The questions presented in this case are "Does the Federal Circuit's acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations -- so long as the ambiguity is not ``insoluble´´ by a court -- defeat the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?" and "Does the presumption of validity dilute the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming?".
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded. It held that "a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also, April 26, 2013, opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. No Justices wrote a concurring opinion.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 28, 2014. See, transcript.
This case is Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 13-369, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2012-1289. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New York, D.C. No. 10-CV-7722.
Representatives Introduce Bill to Require Satellite and Internet Radio to Pay Royalties for Pre 1972 Music
5/29. Rep. George Holding (R-NC) and others introduced HR 4772 [LOC | WW | TLJ], the "Respecting Senior Performers as Essential Cultural Treasures Act", which comes close to producing the acronymal title of "RESPECT Act". This bill would amend the Copyright Act to address payment of royalties for digital performances of sound recordings made before 1972.
This bill would not confer copyright protection upon sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Rather, this bill would provide that any transmitting entity that publicly performs digital sound recordings (internet and satellite radio) pursuant to the statutory licenses of 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114 shall make royalty payments for transmission of pre-1972 sound recordings.
The bill would also create a cause of action in the U.S. District Court for failure to make such royalty payments.
The bill would not preempt current state laws that protect pre-1972 sound recordings. However, it would preclude certain actions to enforce those rights in state courts.
What the Congress does regarding pre-1972 sound recordings will affect artists who recorded songs prior to 1972, copyright holders, and libraries and archives that want to make copies. However, the sponsors of this bill focused on the aging rock and country singers and musicians.
This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). Rep. Holding is a member. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), a cosponsor of the bill, is Chairman of the HJC's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the HJC, is also a cosponsor of the bill. He stated in a release that "Digital radio stations that earn millions off Motown classics but fail to pay royalties to the artists who recorded them are withholding hard-earned profits from deserving musicians. Refusing retired artists royalties from digital radio stations is particularly unfair. The RESPECT Act keeps faith with these living legends of American music -- the famous greats and the less known musicians who supported them -- and makes sure they get a fair shake. At a minimum, that means getting fair pay from the digital radio stations who are marketing stations based solely of pre-72 music and profiting off the work of the men and women who inspired a musical revolution".
Rep. Holding (at left) stated in a release that "Due to a loophole in the law, digital services argue they don't have to pay under their federal copyright license because recordings made before February 15, 1972 are covered by state law. But they aren't paying these royalties under state law either -- claiming it doesn't apply to digital services at all. Currently, great recordings from the American Songbook -- including Sinatra, Motown hits, Country Classics, Jazz from North Carolina's own John Coltrane, and our Beethoven of Banjo -- Earl Scruggs -- are unfortunately losing out. America's legacy artists deserve to be paid for their work and their property as much as their peers who recorded from the mid 70's 'til today. This was never the intent of Congress; it goes against the nature of copyright and property rights generally.".
The other original cosponsors of the bill Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
Michael Huppe, P/CEO of the SoundExchange, stated in a release that "Based on their interpretation of state and federal copyright law, these multi-billion-dollar companies believe that they can use pre-1972 recordings for free, forever. SoundExchange estimates that this practice deprived legacy artists and record labels of more than $60 million in digital royalties last year alone."
The SoundExchange is a performance rights organization that collects royalties due under statutory licenses for non-interactive digital transmissions by satellite and internet radio on behalf of sound recording copyright owners and artists.
On August 26, 2013 SoundExchange filed a complaint [17 pages in PDF] in the U.S. District Court (DC) against Sirius alleging violation of the Copyright Act, and regulations thereunder, in connection with underpayment of royalties for its digital transmission of sound recordings in the years 2007 through 2012, by excluding pre-1972 recordings. See, story titled "SoundExchange Sues Sirius for Underpayment of Statutory Royalties" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,589, August 26, 2013.
Jodie Griffin of the Public Knowledge (PK) stated in a release that the PK "supports protecting pre-1972 sound recordings under federal copyright law, but this bill fails to give pre-1972 recordings actual copyright protection and fails to solve the uncertainty created by a patchwork of state laws. Pre-1972 sound recordings should be addressed in a comprehensive approach that considers the many current issues in music licensing."
She added that "Pre-1972 sound recordings should be given actual copyright protection that lasts for the lifetime of the author", and which is subject to "robust statutory licensing". Moreover, there should be a delayed effective date. Also, "the windfall that results from new licensing requirements should go the actual artist, so the statutory splits that often currently give half of the collected royalty payments to record labels should be adjusted to increase artists' share of the royalties."
Four years ago the Congress directed the Copyright Office (CO) to write a report on this topic. See, HR 1105 [LOC | WW], an omnibus appropriations bill, which became Public Law No. 111-8. The CO published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) on November 3, 1010 that constituted a Notice of Inquiry (NOI). See, FR, November 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 212, at Pages 67777-67781, and story titled "Library of Congress Issues NOI on Extending Copyright Act to Pre 1972 Sound Recordings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,150, November 8, 2010. The CO released its report [214 pages in PDF], titled "Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings" on December 28, 2011.
The CO recommended "that federal copyright protection should apply to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, with special provisions to address ownership issues, term of protection, and registration. This will improve the certainty and consistency of copyright law, will likely encourage more preservation and access activities, and should not result in any appreciable harm to the economic interests of right holders."
The CO also noted that "some webcasters are making royalty payments for the use of pre-1972 sound recordings as part of the statutory royalties they pay to SoundExchange in connection with the digital performance of sound recordings pursuant to sections 112 and 114".
Key Language of the RESPECT Act
5/29. Section 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act provide, among other things, for statutory licenses, and royalty rate setting by the Copyright Royalty Judges, for digital performances (such as webcasting) of sound recordings (such as songs).
HR 4772 would amend 17 U.S.C. § 114 by adding to subsection 114(f)(4) a new subsection (D). Section 114 pertains to the "Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings". Subsection 114(f) pertains to "Licenses for Certain Nonexempt Transmissions". Subsection 114(d) provides the exemption to infringement, and statutory license, for certain "digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service".
17 U.S.C. § 112 at subsection (e) provides an exemption to infringement for ephemeral recordings associated with the Section 114(d) statutory license.
The new subsection 114(f)(4)(D) that HR 4772 would add is as follows:
"(i) Any person publicly performing sound recordings protected under this title by means of transmissions under a statutory license under this section, or making reproductions of such sound recordings under section 112(e), shall make royalty payments for transmissions that person makes of sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972, and reproductions that person makes of those sound recordings under the circumstances described in section 112(e)(1), in the same manner as such person does for sound recordings that are protected under this title.
(ii) If a person fails to make royalty payments described in clause (i) for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, there shall be available, in addition to any remedy that may be available under the laws of any State, a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for recovery limited to the payments described in clause (i), in addition to interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Any such recovery that is obtained shall be offset against any recovery for such violation that may be available under the laws of any State.
(iii) No action may be brought under the laws of any State against a transmitting entity alleging infringement of a right equivalent to the right granted in section 106(6) based on a public performance of a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, or alleging infringement of a right equivalent to the right granted in section 106(1) based on a reproduction of such a sound recording, if---
(I) the performance would have been subject to statutory licensing under subsection (d)(2) if the sound recording had been first fixed on or after February 15, 1972;
(II) the reproduction would have been subject to statutory licensing under section 112(e)(1) if the sound recording had been first fixed on or after February 15, 1972;
(III) the transmitting entity has satisfied the requirements for statutory licensing under subparagraph (B) and section 112(e)(6); and
(IV) the applicable royalty was paid and accounted for under this subparagraph.
(iv) This subparagraph does not confer copyright protection under this title upon sound recordings that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Such sound recordings are subject to the protection available under the laws of the States, and except as provided in clause (iii), are not subject to any limitation of rights or remedies, or any defense, provided under this title.
(v) This subparagraph shall have no effect with respect to any public performance that is made of a sound recording, or reproduction that is made of a sound recording under the circumstances described in section 112(e)(1), on or after February 15, 2067."
6/2. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its incentive auction Report and Order [484 pages in PDF] and its Report and Order [144 pages in PDF] restricting participation in the incentive auction. A divided FCC voted 3-2 to adopt these two items on May 15, 2014. However, the FCC did not release these two items until June 2. The incentive auction R&O is FCC 14-50 in GN Docket No. 14-268. The set aside R&O is FCC 14-63 in WT 12-269 and GN Docket No. 12-268. The FCC also released a Public Notice (DA 14-677 in GN Docket No. 12-268 and ET Docket No. 13-26) regarding the repacking process, and a related document titled "Appendix: Analysis of Aggregate Interference". Initial comments are due by July 2. Reply comments are due by July 22.
5/27. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announced the creation of a NARA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 86, May 5, 2014, at Pages 25626-25627. The NARA announced that this committee will meet on June 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM at the NARA building at 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. The deadline to register to attend is June 10. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 101, May 27, 2014, at Page 30184. The head of the NARA, David Ferriero, adopted a charter for this committee on May 20. Christa Lemelin, the designated Federal Officer, told TLJ on June 3 that while the members have been appointed, the committee has not yet released a list of its members.
5/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that sets deadlines for submitting comments in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its quadrennial review of its broadcast ownership rules, and its Report and Order (FCC 07-217), sometimes referred to as the diversity order, which the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) remanded in its July 7, 2011 opinion in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. The deadline to submit initial comments is July 7, 2014. The deadline to submit reply comments is August 4, 2014. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on March 31, 2014, and released it on April 15, 2014. It is FCC 14-28 in MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, and 04-256. See, FR, Vol. 79, No. 97, May 20, 2014, at Pages 29009-29064. See also, story titled "3rd Circuit Issues Opinion Regarding FCC Regulation of Media Ownership" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,256, July 12, 2011.
5/19. The Food and Drug Administration (FCA) announced that it will host a two day workshop on 3D printing on October 8-9, 2014 at its White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is titled "Additive Manufacturing of Medical Devices: An Interactive Discussion on the Technical Considerations of 3-D Printing". The event is free and open to the public. The deadline to register is 4:00 PM on September 30. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 96, May 19, 2014, at Pages 28732-28733.
• Supreme Court Rules in Limelight v. Akamai on Inducement of Patent Infringement
• Supreme Court Rules in Nautilus v. Biosig on Patent Indefiniteness
• Supreme Court Rules in Patent Litigation Fee Shifting Cases
• Representatives Introduce Bill to Require Satellite and Internet Radio to Pay Royalties for Pre 1972 Music
• Key Language of the RESPECT Act
The Senate will met at 10:00 AM.
Day one of a two day event titled "Biometrics Systems and Technologies". See, event web site. Location: Holiday Inn Rosslyn, 1900 N Fort Myer Dr., Arlington, VA.
8:00 - 9:30 AM. There will be an event titled "Big Data's Coming Role in Cybersecurity". The speakers will include Bobbie Stempfley (DHS/NPPD/CSC). See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building Rotunda, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC). The agenda includes discussion of "the updated NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, updated Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 7628), NIST Smart Grid Testbed activities, and interaction between Cyber-Physical System and Smart Grid". Free. Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28484-5. Location: NIST, Lecture Room G, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.
9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. The Bloomberg Government will host an event titled "Cybersecurity: Getting to Business". Admiral Mike Rogers (Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, Director of the National Security Agency, and Chief of Central Security) will speak at 9:05 AM. Robert Mueller (former FBI Director) will speak at 10:25 AM. Sen. Saxbe Chambliss (R-GA) will speak at 12:45 PM. John Carlin (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's National Security Division) will speak at 3:45 PM. Alejandro Mayorkas (Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security) will speak at 4:20 PM. See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building, Pavilion Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) will meet. The agenda includes "(1) high-frequency trading in the derivatives markets; (2) the Commission's surveillance program; and (3) swap execution facilities". Free. Open to the public. Listen only teleconferencing. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 95, May 16, 2014, at Pages 28491-28492. Location: CFTC, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW.
2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "25 Years after Tiananmen: A Discussion with Chen Guangcheng". Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
10:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing on four pending judicial nominees: Geoffrey Crawford (USDC/DVer), and Nancy Firestone, Lydia Griggsby, and Thomas Halkowski (all three U.S. Court of Federal Claims). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
TIME CHANGE. 10:30 AM. 9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Preserving Public Safety and Network Reliability in the IP Transition". The witnesses will be Colette Honorable (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), Jonathan Banks (US Telecom), Jodi Griffin (Public Knowledge), Gigi Smith (APCO International), and Henning Schulzrinne (FCC). Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Ethical Issues Surrounding Post-Hill Hiring". The speakers will be __. Bring your own lunch. No webcast. Free. Location: __.