House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., told reporters Wednesday that the subcommittee’s first hearing of the 113th Congress will investigate Internet regulation on Feb. 5. Also on tap are subcommittee hearings on the development of FirstNet, the FCC’s incentive auction and the reauthorization of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA).
Court of International Trade activity
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, introduced a bill Thursday to prohibit the sale or rental of violent videogames to minors. Matheson, a member of the House Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, said: “There has been a troubling rise in violent images in television, movies and video games which many fear desensitizes our society to real violence,” in a news release. “We need to empower parents, giving them full access to resources to block content in their own homes and to evaluate the media that may reach their children.” His bill, the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act (HR-287), would require retailers to post Entertainment Software Ratings Board ratings of videogames and prohibit the sale or rental of mature videogames to those under the age of 17, according to the text of the legislation (http://xrl.us/boa86m). If enacted, retailers that violate the law would be subject to FTC enforcement under the commission’s rule regarding unfair or deceptive practices and would be subject to a maximum $5,000 civil penalty for each violation. The bill is similar to a California state law (http://xrl.us/bkvtkf) that was ruled unconstitutional in a 2011 Supreme Court decision. The court affirmed in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association that videogames have First Amendment protections equal to that of books, newspapers and other forms of speech. The 7-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia said videogames qualify for First Amendment protections and that the government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter or content. Kate Edwards, executive director of the International Game Developers Association, said in an email: “a bill enacting something the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional would seem to be a waste of taxpayer money and of legislative efforts that could be better spent elsewhere.” The Entertainment Software Association did not comment.
Samsung is asking the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to issue an import ban on some Ericsson products. The complaint, as posted on the USITC website, asks the commission to investigate under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (http://xrl.us/bn73k7). “We have sought to negotiate with Ericsson in good faith,” Samsung said in a statement. “However, Ericsson has proven unwilling to continue such negotiations by making unreasonable claims, which it is now trying to enforce in court. The accused Ericsson products include telecommunications networking equipment, such as base stations."
Immersion signed a settlement and license deal with Google and Motorola Mobility, resolving a patent infringement dispute, Immersion said Tuesday. In February, Immersion filed a complaint against Motorola with the U.S. International Trade Commission and sued Motorola in U.S. District Court, Wilmington, Del., claiming the touchscreens of certain Android-based smartphones infringed on six Immersion patents covering various uses of haptic effects. Under the settlement and license deal, Immersion said it’s receiving unspecified compensation for prior shipments of Motorola devices containing Basic Haptics technology. The companies also agreed to a license on future shipments of Motorola devices with Basic Haptics and resolved certain issues with respect to Google-branded smartphones containing Basic Haptics, Immersion said. The deal doesn’t extend to other manufacturers’ Android handsets, Immersion said. Immersion will dismiss all pending litigation between it and Motorola, Immersion said. The resolution of the dispute is “a critical step in our overall strategy of enforcing and monetizing our intellectual property, including Basic Haptics, and we're pleased to achieve a settlement that is consistent with our business model, which is largely based on per unit running royalties,” Immersion CEO Victor Viegas said in a news release. Immersion remains “fully committed to enforcing our IP rights while continuing to innovate and create new technology and solutions for the mobile space,” he said. Other terms of the settlement “will remain confidential and are not anticipated to have a material impact on” Immersion’s financial results this year, he said. Immersion shares closed 34.8 percent higher Tuesday at $6.32.
The Justice Department hopes standard-setting organizations promulgate policies limiting the ambiguity of some standard-essential patents (SEPs), as thinking on SEPs and related issues increasingly overlaps with antitrust law in the minds of some regulators, jurists and companies. Attention revolves around the role of patents licensed on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) or reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms, speakers said at an event at the Silicon Flatirons Center. Speakers from the FTC, Justice Department and high-technology and other companies involved in patent licensing said the intersection of antitrust and patent law has been a fruitful area recently. DOJ business review letters on patents are an example, speakers said.
The European Parliament Thursday voted nearly unanimously in favor of an “interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament and the Council concerning the forwarding to and handling by the European Parliament of classified information held by the Council on matters other than those in the area of the common foreign and security policy” (http://xrl.us/bnpneq). The agreement for the first time fully formalizes access for members of Parliament to classified documents like trade agreements or other international treaty drafts held by the Council. Access to limited, confidential, secret and top-secret classified information was necessary for the Parliament to fulfill its role as co-legislator, according to the Lisbon Treaty. Lack of access such as that experienced during the negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement weren’t acceptable, said the lead rapporteur, Green Party member Gerald Haefner. Full access meant not only access to finalized agreements, but to all documentation, preparatory texts and strategy documents. Haefner said security clearance will be leveled, with clearance only necessary above the confidential level (secret and top secret). A big step forward also would be full access to the registry of Council documents, because members of Parliament would be able to understand what kind of talks were going on, what kind of negotiations are under way or in planning stages. While the Council once it passes the agreement still could try to hide documents by relying on clauses protecting the wishes of the originators of the documents -- foreign governments, for example -- Parliament could have tested the arguments before the European Court of Justice, Haefner said. With the agreement in place, there is still work to do to establish a culture of transparency. Negotiations about Parliament’s access to documents regarding foreign policy issues are scheduled to start later this year. An agreement with the EC was put in place in 2010.
The U.S. International Trade Commission began an investigation into allegations that Amazon, Nintendo, Samsung and other companies are importing consumer electronics devices that violate a U.S. patent for a microprocessor component commonly found in CE devices, in violation of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ITC ordered the investigation Monday, the commission said in a filing Thursday (http://xrl.us/bnmw8a). Technology Properties Ltd., Phoenix Digital Solutions and Patriot Scientific Corp. filed a joint complaint against the companies July 24, alleging they violated U.S. Patent 5,809,336 -- a “High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock,” which involves the use of two independent clocks within a microprocessor to increase its speed and efficiency. The ITC noted in its initial filing on the complaint that the asynchronous clock model has become widely adopted within the CE industry, so virtually any such device could infringe on that patent (http://xrl.us/bnieiw). The complainants have also sued in U.S. District Court in Northern California for patent infringement in relation to the complaint. Amazon, Nintendo and Samsung had no immediate comment.
Members of the House IP Subcommittee offered suggestions Wednesday during a hearing to curb the rising number of patent disputes at the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC is an independent, quasi-judicial government agency tasked with assessing the impact of imports on U.S. industries and overseeing actions against unfair trade practices. Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said the average number of ITC complaints filed annually during the past decade is nearly triple the average for the previous decade, and “bogus lawsuits” continue to proliferate despite the passage of patent reform via the America Invents Act. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., described the increasing number of patent disputes at the ITC as a “shakedown situation."
The FTC and Department of Justice took to Congress Wednesday to express concern about technology companies with standard essential patents (SEPs) running to the International Trade Commission for exclusion orders. An exclusion order directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to bar infringing articles from entry into the country. The DOJ Antitrust Division is particularly concerned with SEPs involving mobile devices, because wireless devices depend on many standards for interoperability, Acting Assistant Attorney General Joseph Wayland said. Speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the impact of exclusion orders on competition, he and FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez argued exclusion orders are generally inappropriate remedies for companies that own patents used in industry standards.
EU lawmakers Wednesday blocked the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in what the author of the lead committee report called the “biggest ever defeat” of a European Commission legislative proposal. The EC could present Parliament with revised language later, but it’s more likely that the treaty is dead, said David Martin, of the U.K. and Socialists and Democrats. The 478-39 vote was the first time the body exercised its power under the new EU Treaty to reject an international trade agreement, Parliament said. The move shows that digital rights, as a political issue, is now center-stage for European policymakers, European Digital Rights Advocacy Coordinator Joe McNamee said in a newsletter. The intellectual property (IP) community, however, was furious.