U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim in San Francisco scheduled a June 6 case management Zoom conference Friday on a complaint by Finnish inventor Lauri Valjakka that the Netflix Open Connect program infringes his July 2013 U.S. patent (8,495,167) on data communications networks. Kim was reassigned the case after U.S. Magistrate Judge in San Jose Virginia DeMarchi recused herself a day after it was transferred from U.S. District Court in Waco, Texas, where it was filed Sept. 13. Netflix lawyers haven’t responded to the merits of Valjakka’s arguments, but asked the Waco court in an improper-venue motion in December to move the case to Northern California. It was transferred there March 9 after Valjakka's lawyers didn't oppose the motion. Netflix describes its Open Connect program as providing opportunities for internet service provider partners to improve their customers' Netflix user experiences “by localizing Netflix traffic and minimizing the delivery of traffic that is served over a transit provider.”

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., introduced a bill that would give Customs and Border Protection the authority to share information with rights holders when counterfeit goods are imported into the U.S. The Senate passed a similar provision in its China package, authorizing CBP to share information on suspected violations of intellectual property rights with “any other party with an interest in the merchandise.” Restrictions on sharing information about counterfeits with trademark holders have been a hurdle to stopping counterfeits, CBP has said.

Roku went to court Wednesday to thwart “online counterfeiters” that allegedly trade upon its “reputation and goodwill” by selling products that infringe Roku’s trademarks. The defendants are dozens of “foreign entities” based mainly in China that are improperly marketing unauthorized and illegal products “either by reference to or embodying a mark that is identical or substantially identical” to Roku logos, causing “further confusion and deception in the marketplace,” said its complaint in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The alleged culprits are identified in documents that Roku seeks to file under seal. “Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal counterfeiting operation,” said the complaint. Roku “has been and continues to be irreparably damaged through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable trademarks and goodwill and, therefore, seeks injunctive and monetary relief,” it said. It also seeks an order compelling Amazon and any other enabling “online marketplace account provider” to stop “providing services for any accounts” through which the defendants engage in the sale of counterfeit products, it said. Amazon didn’t comment Thursday.

Various Primewire websites now direct to a new site that removed links to pirated content, but that doesn't change the need for permanent injunctive relief against the video pirating operation, Netflix and various studios told the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles Monday in docket 2:21-cv-09317. The plaintiffs were awarded a preliminary injunction in January (see 2201100047). Netflix and the others asked the court to approve the requested permanent injunction, which was amended to include the new website and domain.

Samsung applied March 7 to trademark the plain-text phrase “flap leather cover” for smartphone cases, Patent and Trademark Office records show. Samsung filed a similar application March 3 with U.K. trademark authorities, PTO said. Samsung didn't comment.

A bipartisan group of senators filed a bill Thursday meant, they said, to “prevent China from stealing intellectual property from American companies through their corrupt court system.” Introduced by Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; Chris Coons, D-Del.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; and Rick Scott, R-Fla., the Defending American Courts Act targets China’s use of anti-suit injunctions, which “limit the ability of American companies to file or maintain claims related to patent infringement in U.S. courts or the International Trade Commission.” The bill bans “bad actors” from seeking review of the relevant patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and “if they are found to have infringed the patent, the bill requires certain presumptions that make enhanced damages and attorney fees more likely.”

The creative community is losing a “lion” with the retirement of Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin said Monday, thanking Deutch for his work on film, TV and the streaming industry.

LG and Dolby reached an out-of-court settlement on LG’s allegations that Dolby reneged on its ATSC commitments to license its NextGenTV AC-4 audio codec patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (see 2201060058), said an LG stipulation filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. LG was seeking a preliminary injunction and 14-day temporary restraining order to bar Dolby from terminating its AC-4 license, apparently over disputed royalty audio reports. LG and Dolby each agreed to pay its own attorneys’ costs, said the stipulation.

Netflix won’t license the video streaming inventions in the VideoLabs patent pool and refuses to engage in “good faith” licensing negotiations, said a complaint Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, in docket 1:22-cv-229, alleging infringement of three of those patents. “VideoLabs contacted Netflix multiple times to offer Netflix the benefit of VideoLabs’ platform and to alert it to its use of VideoLabs’ patented technology,” said the complaint. “After many months of ignoring VideoLabs’ entreaties, Netflix finally responded” when it “foreclosed the possibility of good faith discussions by insisting that VideoLabs agree not to enforce its patent rights against Netflix for an indefinite period of time.” Netflix again went silent when VideoLabs declined the “demand,” it said: “VideoLabs feels that it has no recourse but to file this action to stop Netflix’s unauthorized use of VideoLabs’ patents.” Netflix didn’t comment.

Cox Communications and the music labels suing it are clashing over a piece of computer code not made available to Cox in discovery. The plaintiff labels said Thursday (docket 1:18-cv-00950) in U.S. District Court in Alexandria that code "is of no consequence, since its production would not have changed the jury’s finding of Cox’s overwhelming liability for the massive infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works." MarkMonitor uses the code to store data from Audible Magic's identification of the contents of suspected infringing files, the labels said. They said Cox's subpoena of MarkMonitor never asked for the code and has never argued its absence limited any expert analysis. Cox said the labels' direct infringement case hinged on the supposed accuracy of the MarkMonitor system and its ability to use Audible Magic tech to guarantee that only legitimate infringement allegations were made last month, in its motion for relief from the $1 billion verdict against it. The discovery of the code "demonstrates the existence of newly discovered evidence, which seems likely to warrant relief."