LG, Vizio and four other companies were charged Tuesday in a series of federal complaints with infringing at least one of four Broadcom patents on video encoding and decoding, graphics processing and DVR functionality. The complaints (in Pacer) filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, also named Funai, MStar Semiconductor, MediaTek and Sigma Designs as defendants. The complaints against the TV brands and chipmakers all seek injunctions barring U.S. imports of the infringing products, plus damages “in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty for each asserted patent.” Broadcom also filed patent infringement complaints against the six companies at the International Trade Commission. LG spokesman John Taylor declined comment Wednesday. Representatives of the other five companies didn’t respond to emails.

Sony’s PlayStation Vue over-the-top service violates four Arris patents on video playback and content navigation, Arris alleged in a Thursday complaint. For example, Vue features a "My Shows" function that "can be used to capture and store a continuous feed of video into a digital video format," said the complaint (in Pacer) filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland. That's in direct violation of an October 2008 patent on methods for implementing seamless playback of "continuous media feeds" that Arris co-owns by assignment with Alcatel Lucent, the complaint said. Arris “has no adequate remedy at law for Sony’s acts of infringement,” it said. Arris “has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm” as a “direct and proximate result of Sony’s acts of infringement,” it said. Arris “will continue to be damaged and irreparably harmed” unless Sony’s violations “are enjoined by this Court,” it says. Sony representatives didn’t comment Friday.

The Copyright Office sought comment Thursday on an NPRM that would amend its rules for handling copyright applications, fee and other material submissions during disruptions or outages of its electronic systems. The NPRM would allow the register of copyrights to assign the date of a submission's receipt as “the date on which she determines the material would have been received but for the disruption or suspension of the electronic system.” The CO ordinarily views the submission date as the date the submission was made. “In cases where it is unclear when the attempt was made, the proposed rule provides the Register with discretion to determine the effective date of receipt on a case-by-case basis,” said a Federal Register notice. The NPRM also updates the rules to account for other recent practices, including allowing an applicant a full year to request an update to a submission date. The item also gives an applicant a full year to request a submission date change when the application was delivered in person or via mail when there's no record of the material's submission. Comments are due April 3.

Indications are growing that Congress may be able to act on patent law revamp legislation this year, said American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy Visiting Fellow Michael Rosen in a Wednesday blog post. Rosen noted recent comments by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, (see 1702160055) and House IP Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that indicate they're zeroing in on more targeted legislation that would address issues like a revamp of rules governing the court venue for patent infringement lawsuits. “One way or the other, Hatch and Issa will push reform forward,” Rosen said. “Whether they succeed remains to be seen.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in February that he would need to re-evaluate whether to include patent venue language in future patent legislation depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s pending review of those rules (see 1702010069). The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument March 27 in Heartland Food Products Group's requested review of 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(b), which requires a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit only in a U.S. District Court where the defendant resides or has an “established place of business.” Tech groups are watching that case.

The Copyright Office is extending to March 30 the comment deadline for its study on how existing U.S. law protects the moral rights of attribution and integrity. The study, initiated in January, will examine whether changes in U.S. law are needed to protect moral rights (see 1701230061). Replies are now due May 15, the CO said in a notice set to run in Thursday's Federal Register. The CO separately said in Wednesday's Federal Register it's withdrawing a portion of its final rule allowing an author, claimant to a copyright or representatives to ask the office to remove “extraneous and unnecessary” personally identifiable information from online versions of their copyright application (see 1702020030). The CO said it was withdrawing it because a separate rule that adopted technical amendments to the office’s regulations for registration, recordation, licensing and other services (see 1702060043) already updated some of the rules changes.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Monday a 2015 Jacksonville district court ruling that granted cruise line Royal Caribbean a default judgment against Cruise Traffic over the latter's cybersquatting of two domain names -- RoyalCaribean.com and RoyalCarribean.com. Royal Caribbean filed an in rem lawsuit against Cruise Traffic under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, claiming Cruise Traffic used the two domain names to “wrongfully profit” from the cruise line’s reputation. The Jacksonville court granted a default judgment against Cruise Traffic when Royal Caribbean’s notice to the address for Jai George, the domains’ original listed registrant, went undelivered because the address included on registration documents was no longer correct. Royal Caribbean also attempted to contact Bindu Joseph, George’s sister-in-law, to whom George transferred registration of the domains. Cruise Traffic appealed, claiming the Jacksonville court didn’t have in rem jurisdiction and Royal Caribbean didn’t exercise due diligence in its attempts to contact Joseph. A three-judge 11th Circuit panel ruled per curiam that the Jacksonville court was correct in saying “Royal Caribbean would be prejudiced by the continued use of the Domain Names. This determination was supported by evidence the Domain Names diverted customers attempting to book cruises directly through Royal Caribbean to third-party agents, to whom Royal Caribbean then paid a commission. In other words, Royal Caribbean incurred additional expenses due to the use of the Domain Names.” Judges Lanier Anderson, Stanley Marcus and Beverly Martin heard the case. They panel ruled that the Jacksonville court did have jurisdiction and said it was “unpersuaded” by Cruise Traffic’s claim that Royal Caribbean didn’t exercise proper due diligence. “Royal Caribbean did all that it was required by statute when it sent notice to Joseph via mail and email and published notice,” the 11th Circuit said in its opinion. It said Cruise Traffic couldn't be considered a “registrant or authorized licensee” because that issue was not raised at the Jacksonville court. Royal Caribbean and Cruise Traffic didn’t comment.

The European Parliament Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee deleted a proposed pan-EU ancillary copyright aimed at allowing publishers to claim royalties from news aggregation services like Google News (see 1609140010), in a published draft opinion Thursday on the European Commission's proposed copyright directive for the digital single market. The proposed ancillary right drew flack from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Center for Democracy and Technology, CTA, Mozilla and other U.S. stakeholders (see 1608290062, 1609060078, 1609120026 and 1609150053). Catherine Stihler, MEP for Scotland, deleted the ancillary or “publisher's right” in the draft opinion, saying it lacked “sufficient justification.” Some EU-based groups also opposed keeping the ancillary right in the copyright directive, saying this month it was “fundamentally misconceived.” The EP committee's draft opinion also amends language on intermediary liability and filtering, adds a user-generated content exception to copyright, and broadens the scope of the copyright exception for text and data mining. CCIA “welcomes” the EP committee's draft opinion as a “good first step in the right direction,” said Europe Public Policy Manager Maud Sacquet in a news release. “CCIA urges the Parliament and Member States to follow this first step, to stand up for the deletion of the publishers’ right in the EU and to go even further by entirely deleting all provisions undermining the e-Commerce Directive.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed amicus briefs Wednesday urging the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm a 2015 District Court ruling in New Bern, North Carolina, that World Programming Limited (WPL) didn't infringe the copyright on SAS Institute’s software. A federal jury awarded SAS more than $79 million in damages after deciding WPL engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by reverse engineering SAS’ software. Judge Louise Flanagan issued a summary judgment that WPL hadn't violated the copyright on SAS’ software because WPL only reverse engineered the SAS software’s functionality. CCIA and EFF argued that affirmance of the court decision would help maintain the precedent that copyright doesn’t protect interfaces needed for interoperability. “A company that exercised proprietary control over its products’ interfaces could dictate which products made by other firms -- if any -- could interoperate with its software,” CCIA said. “This would extend statutory rights far beyond what is necessary to protect the original expressive elements to which copyright has traditionally attached. It would also override limitations on copyright crafted to protect the public good.” The Internet Association and Engine also signed onto CCIA’s brief. Circuit courts have for decades said Copyright Act Section 102 “does not cover the processes, systems, and methods of operation that [a programmer’s source] code may employ to interface with other software,” EFF said in its brief (in Pacer). “If SAS’s view had been accepted at the birth of modern computing, many important technologies would never have existed or succeeded.”

Public Interest Registry said it will indefinitely pause “further development” of its planned Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy (SCDRP) amid stakeholder scrutiny. PIR, the domain registry for the .org top-level domain, was developing SCDRP in concert with the Domain Name Association’s development of its Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy, a voluntary third-party mechanism akin to ICANN’s trademark-centric uniform dispute resolution policy that would address copyright infringement through the use of domain names (see 1702080085). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Internet Commerce Association were among stakeholders criticizing DNA’s proposal and seeking further information on PIR’s plans (see 1702100054 and 1702170058). PIR said Thursday it paused development of SCDRP to “reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and other tech sector stakeholders urged the Copyright Office not to recommend sweeping changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512’s notice-and-takedown process and the statute's safe harbors, as expected (see 1702210059). The CO reported receiving 77 comments through midnight Tuesday on its second round of questions on the study of Section 512, which targeted questions on how Section 512 balances the need to foster online innovation and the rights of the content industry. The CO sought input on how policymakers should factor divergent views on the efficacy of Section 512’s safe harbors and divergent views on how to update the statute (see 1611080021). “Because online content such as commentary and parody may require using pre-existing content in ways permitted by limitations and exceptions, ‘stay-down’ obligations are likely to lead to suppression of content making lawful use of works that were previously the subject of takedown demands,” CCIA said in its filing. Re:Create Coalition said Section 512 helped foster a “growing and important class of ‘new creators,’” and “failing to listen to them would be to ignore the core mission of the Copyright Office and any government entity -- to serve the public.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation said a “filtering mandate would not be the minor change to existing law that the anodyne phrase ‘notice-and-stay-down’ suggests, but would rather dismantle the careful balance reflected in the DMCA.” Policymakers “should be wary of tampering with the delicate balance of the current regime, which could jeopardize the rights of both copyright holders and users while also undermining the foundations of the digital economy,” said the R Street Institute and the Center for Democracy and Technology in their joint comments. “Absent these protections, online services and access providers would feel compelled to strictly monitor or restrict their customers' activity for fear of litigation, likely leading to the suppression of significant amounts of protected speech.”