Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said a scheduling order Monday from the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due Oct. 28, said the order. The two sides, in a joint status report earlier Monday, agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14. The court also gave the plaintiffs until Nov. 14 to respond to the government’s reply, rejecting DOJ's request to deny the plaintiffs the opportunity for a response. The court “will determine if oral argument is necessary” on USTR's remand results after briefing is complete, said the order. The plaintiffs requested oral argument, and the government took no position on the request.

Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 test plaintiffs and DOJ agree that plaintiffs’ comments on the Aug. 1 Lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (see 2208020016) and a government response to those comments would aid the court’s evaluation of the remand results, said the two sides in a joint status report filed Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade. They propose that plaintiffs’ comments would be due Sept. 14 and DOJ’s response 30 days later, but the government says the plaintiffs aren't entitled to file a reply to the government’s response, as plaintiffs want to do by Nov. 4, said the report. The sides also disagree on the page limits for future filings, it said. Plaintiffs also are requesting oral argument on the remand results, but the government takes no position on the request.

Dish Network filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order against Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Friday at the California Public Utilities Commission, in a dispute affecting the wireless entrant’s ability to power 5G facilities (see 2208040016). Dish’s motion in docket C.22-08-002 also seeks an order to show cause why the CPUC shouldn’t issue a preliminary injunction. Dish sought “injunctive relief and emergency treatment to stop the irreparable harm that will result from PG&E’s unapproved material revision to its electric service tariff,” including cancelling some pending power applications “and substantial delay approving future applications.” Dish filed a separate motion to shorten time for PG&E to respond to the emergency motion. The Wireless Infrastructure Association asked to join the proceeding Thursday. Changes to how PG&E sells power to communications facilities “will have a significant negative impact on the entire wireless services industry,” WIA said. “PG&E’s new requirements and policies -- which were imposed without advice letter or Commission approval -- are unjust and unreasonable, and were adopted in violation of the Public Utilities Code and the Commission’s Rules.”

Funding public education was the “main motivation” for a Maryland digital ad tax and a ban on passing on the cost to consumers, the state said in a supplemental brief Friday at the U.S. District Court in Baltimore (case 1:21-cv-00410-LKG). “But in addressing this funding need, the legislature sought to achieve other objectives,” including “greater equity and fairness in taxation and the modernization of Maryland tax laws, not only to adapt to changes in the State’s economy but also to encourage taxed entities to change for the better.” The pass-through ban ensures the digital ad service providers pay the tax that will fund public education improvements, the state said. Judge Lydia Griggsby said at oral argument earlier this month the ban implicates speech but sought more briefs on state interest and other questions (see 2207130001). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees “no evidence of any substantial interest served by the pass-through prohibition, nor is there evidence that the pass-through prohibition is appropriately tailored to any such interest,” the plaintiff said in its brief. The chamber urged facial invalidation of the pass-through prohibition that it said is a “a content-based ban on speech” or, at minimum, “unconstitutionally overbroad.” Maryland disagreed it’s unconstitutional. “Directly imposing a charge by billing it constitutes commercial conduct that may be regulated, and even punished criminally, without implicating the First Amendment.” The law constrains a taxpayer’s speech only if it's integral to “the unlawful conduct of direct pass-through,” said the state: It wouldn’t "prevent a taxpayer from including on an invoice whatever message it wished to convey about the digital ad tax, including the amount of the taxpayer’s annual digital ad gross revenue tax estimated to be attributable to the invoiced transaction, or, indeed, any other subject.”

Though Google “rarely sues” other companies for patent infringement, “it must assert its intellectual property rights here,” said its complaint Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, alleging Sonos products infringe four Google voice control and wireless patents. The complaint extends a yearslong patent fight between the companies. “Google is proud of its multi-year partnership with Sonos, and has worked constructively with Sonos to make the companies’ products work seamlessly,” said the complaint. But Sonos reciprocated by making “false claims about the companies’ shared work and Google’s technology in the lawsuits that Sonos filed against Google,” it said. “Rather than compete on the basis of innovation and product quality, Sonos has decided to compete in the courtroom, and started an aggressive and misleading campaign against our products, at the expense of our shared customers,” emailed a Google spokesperson. “We prefer innovation to litigation but their actions leave us no choice but to defend our technology and challenge Sonos’s clear, continued infringement of our patents.” He confirmed Google plans to file a Tariff Act Section 337 complaint against Sonos at the International Trade Commission asserting allegations similar to those in the San Francisco complaint. Sonos didn’t comment Tuesday.

The District of Columbia is “exploring all options, including appeal,” of a D.C. Superior Court decision affirming its dismissal of an Amazon antitrust case, a spokesperson for Attorney General Karl Racine (D) said Friday. The court last week rejected D.C.’s motion to reconsider Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo’s verbal dismissal last March of Racine’s complaint (case 2021 CA 001775 B). DOJ supported a second look (see 2204280052). Rejecting reconsideration, Puig-Lugo disagreed that the court failed to accept as true detailed factual allegations of anti-competitive effects. “The District simply repeated vague conclusion after vague conclusion devoid of facts to support the vague conclusions it repeatedly stated.” D.C. may not file an amended complaint, he said. The judge “got this wrong,” said the Racine spokesperson. Amazon didn't comment.

Government officials can’t circumvent the First Amendment by inducing, threatening or colluding with private companies to suppress protected speech, Louisiana and Missouri argued Tuesday in an amended complaint for their free speech lawsuit against the Biden administration (see 2207130051). The states sued the administration in May, claiming officials colluded with social media companies to censor and suppress truthful information on topics like COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and election integrity. Among the lawsuit's targets: Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention, Homeland Security Department Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly and DHS Disinformation Governance Board Nina Jankowicz. The states claim government officials colluded with Big Tech platforms to label misinformation and disinformation. “Counterspeech, not censorship, is the proper response to supposed ‘misinformation,’” they wrote.

Charter Communications settled two copyright suits, per notices Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Denver (dockets 1:19-cv-00874 and 1:21-cv-02020). They follow its Bright House Communications settling a lawsuit brought by music labels alleging contributory copyright infringement via inadequate policing of broadband subscribers' music piracy (see 2208020034). Neither of the new notices supplied any terms of the settlements. Charter didn't comment Wednesday.

Bright House Networks and record labels suing it have settled, the sides said Monday in a joint notice of resolution (docket 8:19-cv-710) Monday in U.S. District Court in Tampa. A jury trial on the labels' suit charging the Charter Communications subsidiary with not adequately policing music piracy by its broadband subscribers was to start Monday (see 2207140026).

U.S. District Judge John Bailey in Wheeling, West Virginia, granted class-action status to a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against DirecTV. In a docket 5:17-CV-179 order Monday, Bailey said the plaintiffs’ claims "are easily susceptible to resolution on a classwide basis" and if any damages issues require individual inquiry, the damage issues can be bifurcated. The complaint claims DirecTV is vicariously liable for actions of telemarketing firm AC1, which was selling DirecTV subscriptions. Per the order, the class is anyone in the U.S. who had a telephone number on the Do-Not-Call Registry and who received more than one telemarketing call within any 12-month period at any time from AC1 to promote the sale of DirecTV. DirecTV didn't comment Tuesday.