The Treasury Department will soon require declarations to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. when transactions involving critical technologies would normally be subject to an American export license. Its final rule makes some changes and clarifications, partly due to industry comments. It's effective Oct. 15, said Tuesday's Federal Register. Existing declaration requirements for critical tech apply to transactions “for which specific actions occurred” Feb. 13-Oct. 14.

Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord with the International Trade Commission is “not inclined” to sever into two probes the ITC's Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations that Lenovo computers, tablets and parts infringe five Nokia patents, she told a Sept. 3 telephonic conference, per a transcript (login required) posted Monday in docket 337-TA-1208. Lee ordered the parties Aug. 14 to show cause why the “disparate” issues between four H.264 patents and the remaining invention didn’t warrant severance (see 2008160004). Nokia and ITC staff argued in their Aug. 26 replies there was substantial overlap between the bodies of intellectual property (see 2008270001), and Lord agreed, according to the transcript. “On balance, it seemed to me that we ought to keep everything in one place,” she said.

IBM said the Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security should impose targeted export controls on specific facial recognition software, not restrict the entire category, since some of the technology can be used for benign purposes. There are “clear use-cases that must be off limits” for export, such as artificial intelligence-powered software used for mass surveillance and human rights abuses, but other technologies are safe for everyday uses, said Friday comments on a July BIS notice on potential license requirements for items that may be used for crowd control reasons and human rights abuses. IBM said BIS should control facial recognition technologies that use “‘1-to-many’ matching end uses.” Comments are due Tuesday.

Google device “redesigns” built without the embedded source code that Sonos alleges infringe its multiroom audio patents are “hypothetical,” not real, and should be struck from the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the allegations (see 2002060070), said a Sonos brief (login required) in support of the motion to strike posted Thursday in docket 337-TA-1191. Google misrepresented that the redesigns were “fixed and definite” when it told Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock it made the redesigns available to Sonos for inspection, said Sonos. “Google refuses to produce the alleged redesigns to Sonos for Sonos to test and is only willing to provide a limited demonstration of certain functions under the supervision of a Google attorney,” it said. “Such testing is necessary to determine whether or not the supposed redesigns actually removed the infringing code.” That Sonos was deprived of the opportunity to test the redesigns “directly contradicts” Google’s argument that the revised source code is embedded in physical working products that Google made available for inspection, said Sonos. Google didn’t comment Friday.

The record industry has started to climb out of the valley it fell into during the initial rise of digital music and file sharing but has further to go, said panelists Thursday at an event held by George Mason University’s Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property. Industry revenue declined 50% after 1999 and has started to climb back up, said RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier. Music streaming jump-started that growth, said Garrett Levin, CEO of the Digital Media Association, which represents Pandora, Amazon and other streamers. Streaming led to increased music consumption, said Larry Miller, director of New York University's music business program. Levin said over a third of internet users pay for a premium streaming service. That changed the way the sector works, said Miller: “Music has become a consumption business, with no peak, only a hill surrounded by plateaus.” Emerging players such as TikTok should pursue partnerships and licensing agreements with the music industry instead of shifting liability to users, Glazier said.

Groups are scrambling to get the Music Modernization Act’s music licensing collective ready to issue licenses by January (see 2004220055). The timeline between the MMA’s October 2018 passage and January is tight, Mechanical Licensing Collective Board Member Danielle Aguirre told a George Mason University panel Wednesday. Validating copyright ownership data has been a big push for the MLC over the past six months, she said: Copyright owners are being asked to take a more active role in “identifying their works,” cleaning up data and working with the MLC to make sure it’s correct. The MLC will be better if songwriters do their part to get the data correct, said Songwriters of North America founding member Adam Gorgoni. He noted if there’s a conflict and copyright owners participate in sorting out those differences, “theoretically, everyone will get paid what they deserve, and that’s our goal.” SONA will continue its due diligence to ensure songwriters are “treated fairly” and when there are disagreements, “we’re going to fight,” he said. Spotify Global Head-Publisher Operations Lisa Selden noted time's tight. The biggest challenge is getting the final regulations from the Copyright Office, testing the work with the MLC and having it ready for licensing, she said. CO General Counsel Regan Smith welcomed comments in ongoing proceedings regarding the MMA, noting the proposed rule on transparency and additional disclosure.

Though Epic Games depicts itself as “a modern corporate Robin Hood,” eager to steal from the rich and give to the poor, it’s really a “multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store,” alleged an Apple countersuit (in Pacer) Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland. After Epic installed an in-app direct-payment system for its Fortnite franchise to break up Apple’s alleged App Store monopolies, Apple retaliated by threatening to cut off Epic’s access to game developer tools, said Epic’s Aug. 13 complaint (see 2008130048). U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Epic a temporary restraining order Aug. 24 blocking Apple from making good on the threat (see 2008250004). Now Apple wants Epic's direct-payment system taken down. Epic installed it “in the dark hours of the night” Aug. 13 in an “underhanded scheme to breach its agreements and free ride on Apple’s investments” in the App Store, said Apple’s Tuesday countersuit. “Epic’s flagrant disregard for its contractual commitments and other misconduct has caused significant harm to Apple,” it said. “Epic has reaped millions of dollars in in-app purchases through its unauthorized external purchase mechanism,” diverting to itself commissions Apple was entitled to earn under its license agreement, it said. Apple wants the court to declare Epic in breach of contract and seeks a permanent injunction barring the game developer from using its proprietary direct-payment system in the App Store. Epic didn’t comment.

Sonos seeks an International Trade Commission “summary determination” it has satisfied the Tariff Act Section 337 import requirement on 19 models of Google devices that allegedly infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents. “None of the underlying facts at issue are disputed,” said Sonos’ Aug. 27 motion (login required), posted Thursday in docket 337-TA-1191. Google “expressly stipulated” that it imported into the U.S. at least one unit of each allegedly infringing device, said Sonos. Google submitted copies of Customs and Border Protection Form 7501 “corresponding to at least one" import of each device since January 2019, it said. Granting the motion “will dramatically simplify the issues for trial, reducing the burden and costs of litigation on the private parties,” plus the ITC and its staff, said Sonos. The ITC opened its investigation Feb. 6 (see 2002060070). Sonos seeks an import ban on the allegedly infringing Google products.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notified Sonos it got extension through Dec. 31 of the exclusion from the List 4A Section 301 tariffs on speaker imports from China, said the company in a Thursday SEC filing. The exclusion extension eliminates the 7.5% tariffs until year-end. Sonos sources the speakers under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule's 8517.62.0090 subheading for a wide swath of Bluetooth goods, one of 87 categories granted USTR extensions Aug. 31 (see 2008310033). Sonos, whose exclusion was granted in March (see 2005110034), has begun the process of seeking refunds for the $30 million in tariffs paid through July, said Chief Financial Officer Brittany last month (see 2008060030). The company is continuing plans to diversify its supply chain into Malaysia, Bagley said on the August call. Sonos turned to Malaysia to reduce exposure to the tariffs on Chinese-sourced wireless mesh networking audio components. The company planned to have “significant” U.S.-bound production from Malaysia ramped up by Dec. 31, but due to COVID-19-related government restrictions on manufacturing in Malaysia, reaching scale will take until mid-2021, Bagley said.

No “extraordinary circumstances exist” to deny Sonos’ motion to terminate the International Trade Commission’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation against Alphabet (see 2008240002), said Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock's order (login required) Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1191 granting the termination. The probe continues into allegations that Google smart devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents, but Sonos withdrew the allegations against the Google parent after it swore under oath it doesn’t import or sell the allegedly infringing products. Bullock agrees with Sonos that terminating the probe against Alphabet “will simplify the investigation without causing prejudice to Google,” he said.