The Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to hear an inter partes review challenge isn’t reviewable on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday, siding with PTO. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in Thryv v. Click-to-Call (18-916). Click-to-Call argued that courts should be able to review circumstances involving time limits for certain patent reviews. The case pertains to 35 U.S.C. §315(b). “Allowing §315(b) appeals would waste resources" spent on resolving patentability and would leave “bad patents enforceable,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. Gorsuch said the decision “carries us another step down the road of ceding core judicial powers to agency officials and leaving the disposition of private rights and liberties to bureaucratic mercy.” The court let the agency override one of the America Invents Act’s “express limits on agency authority,” Click-to-Call attorney Daniel Geyser emailed. “It’s now a question for Congress to restore the judiciary’s traditional role in reviewing agency action and saying what the law is.”
ICANN should "reject the transfer of control over the .ORG registry to Ethos Capital," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said Thursday in a letter to the ICANN board and CEO. The AG's office, which is charged with supervising charitable trusts in the state, investigated ICANN and its role in approving the sale by the Internet Society of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos (see 2003090027). If Ethos is permitted to buy PIR, "it will no longer have the unique characteristics that ICANN valued" when it chose PIR as the nonprofit to run the registry, Becerra wrote. He accused the parties of failing to respond to some questions from ICANN, the public and the internet community, including queries about PIR's financial picture after the sale and the sale process itself. The absence of critical information is "troubling given the unique nature of the .ORG community," he said: ICANN must exercise its authority to withhold approval."
DOJ shouldn’t allow any large-scale deal between Liberty Media and iHeartMedia, said the Open Markets Institute and other groups Wednesday. “Any such deal would harm American journalism by further concentrating power in local radio markets nationwide.” It would “likely lead to further cutbacks in America’s local newsrooms, just as the COVID-19 crisis is leading to large and growing job losses.” The companies didn't comment right away. Others expressing similar are the Artist Rights Alliance, Center for Digital Democracy, Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Public Citizen. Such a transaction would also harm advertisers and performers, OMI said. “Further concentration in local radio markets likely would mean fewer broadcast outlets, which would reduce artist incomes.” OMI wants a “merger moratorium” during the pandemic.
DOJ components can retain investigation-related data intercepted and collected from drones for no longer than 180 days, Attorney General William Barr said Monday. Officials can share the data and communications if it supports investigations and other law enforcement agencies like DOD and the Homeland Security Department, the guidance said. It outlines how department components can request “designation of facilities or assets for protection” under the Preventing Emerging Threats Act.
Oral argument is April 22 in Independent Producers Group appeals of Copyright Royalty Board distribution of 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite royalties, ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday (docket 18-1337, in Pacer). Judges are Thomas Griffith, Cornelia Pillard and Laurence Silberman.
Replies to the Copyright Office review of online publication are due June 15, the CO said Thursday, extending the previous March 19 deadline that itself had been delayed from March 3. The office is considering “whether and how to amend its registration regulations and other considerations relevant to ensuring continued thorough assistance to Congress.”
Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock at the International Trade Commission granted the joint Sonos-Google motion permitting the companies to hold their May 11 settlement conference by phone amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Both sides showed “good cause” when they argued Tuesday their outside lawyers would need to travel to the conference from localities that are under stay-at-home orders (see 2004070034), said Bullock’s order (login required) Wednesday in docket 337-TA-1191. ITC staff didn't oppose moving the conference remotely. Sonos alleges Google smart speakers infringe Sonos multiroom audio patents.
The Copyright Office expanded electronic filing options for various services in response to COVID-19, it said Wednesday. Affected services include registration, recordation, licensing, records research and certification.
“Good cause” exists during the COVID-19 pandemic for the International Trade Commission chief administrative law judge (CALJ) to let Sonos and Google have their May 11 settlement conference by phone, said a joint motion (login required) posted Tuesday in docket 337-TA-1191. CALJ Charles Bullock presides over the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Sonos allegations that Google smart speakers and other devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents (see 2002060070). His March 11 order ruled out remotely meeting without permission and for “good cause shown.” Sonos and Google employees “with settlement authority” are in California, and their outside lawyers are there and in Illinois and Washington, said the motion. All are under stay-at-home orders. Requiring them to “travel to and conduct an in-person settlement conference would place these individuals at undue risk,” it said. “While it may be possible that some restrictions could be lifted before May 11, it is unlikely that the parties could schedule an in-person settlement conference to occur in the brief window of time after the lifting of any restrictions.”
IPTV service Nitro TV is "a brazen, large-scale copyright infringement operation, undertaken to maximize ill-gotten profits for as long as possible," content companies said Friday in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles complaint (in Pacer), seeking an injunction. They said the web- and app-based subscription service carries thousands of unauthorized TV channels and movies. Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Disney, Sony and ViacomCBS are suing. Also named as a defendant is Texan Alejandro Galindo, administrator of Nitro TV's Facebook group, and various John Does. Nitro TV didn't comment Monday.