The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the massive litigation, said a Tuesday order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the preliminary injunction (see 2107060080).
Oral argument on California’s net neutrality law will be Sept. 14 at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said a July 4 notice in case 21-15430 (in Pacer). The partially virtual argument is the fifth case scheduled for the court’s 9 a.m. PDT session. The court set 15 minutes for each side. ISP plaintiffs and California disagreed last week on how much time to allow for discovery (see 2107020048).
New York and ISP associations challenging the state’s broadband affordability law “are working towards an expedited resolution of the matter at the trial court level,” New York Assistant Attorney General Patricia Hingerton told a federal court Tuesday. The AG office seeks a 30-day extension to all deadlines at U.S. District Court in Central Islip, Hingerton wrote (in Pacer). The AG last week appealed the court's granting of a preliminary injunction in June enjoining the state from enforcing the new law (see 2106300071). The AG office and some ISP group plaintiffs declined to comment now.
Vivint intends to “vigorously defend” against ADT allegations that its SkyControl panel and Smart Hub violate patents 8,976,937 and 9,286,772 belonging to ADT, it said Wednesday, after ADT filed a complaint (in Pacer) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Tuesday. ADT also filed a companion case with the International Trade Commission. “Vivint launched its SkyControl Panel and related products with the express desire, in the words of its former CEO, to ‘control anything and everything inside the home,’” said ADT Chief Legal Officer David Smail in a statement: “Apparently Vivint also meant ‘by any means necessary.’” Vivint infringes ADT patents covering predictive analytics, detection and diagnostics, and advanced user interfaces including voice control, Smail said, “to gain an unfair advantage in the smart home security and automation market.” By defending its patents, “ADT is determined to protect its employees, its customers, its products, and its reputation,” he said. ADT asked the ITC for an exclusion order prohibiting Vivint from importing products that allegedly infringe on its patents, and asked the court for a finding of infringement plus damages, fees and other relief. Vivint believes the claims asserted are “completely without merit and that the complaint is a reactionary countersuit” to a patent infringement complaint Vivint filed in February against ADT in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah asserting ADT infringed six Vivint patents. That case is ongoing.
Lecrew Licensing filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, Tuesday against Sonos for allegedly infringing patent 9,516,370, titled “Method, device, and system for directing a wireless speaker from a mobile phone to receive and render a playlist from a content server on the internet.” The patent is based on a 2014 filing listing Martin Weel, Modjeska, California, as inventor and Black Hills Media as assignee. The complaint (in Pacer) identifies Sonos’ Roam portable speaker, saying “the accused system supports a display (e.g., display of the smartphone in which app of the accused system is installed)" for displaying, on a touch screen of the mobile phone, device identifiers such as icons of paired devices, such as speakers in a dining room or kitchen, for multiple speakers. The complaint seeks a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable, that Sonos infringed one or more claims, and damages and attorney fees. Sonos didn't comment Wednesday.
The FTC’s antitrust complaint against Facebook is “legally insufficient and must therefore be dismissed,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Monday in FTC v. Facebook (20-3590, in Pacer) (see 2012090062). The agency offered a defective case that could “conceivably be overcome by re-pleading,” Boasberg wrote, dismissing the complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The agency failed to “plead enough facts to plausibly establish a necessary element of all of its Section 2 claims -- namely, that Facebook has monopoly power in the market for Personal Social Networking (PSN) Services,” he wrote. The FTC claimed in the complaint that the company has a dominant market share higher than 60%. The agency was unable to offer metrics or methods it used to “calculate Facebook’s market share,” which “renders its vague ‘60%-plus’ assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward,” Boasberg wrote. He also dismissed New York’s case against Facebook in a separate motion (20-3589, in Pacer). Facebook is "pleased that today’s decisions recognize the defects in the government complaints filed against Facebook," said the company in a statement. "We compete fairly every day to earn people’s time and attention and will continue to deliver great products for the people and businesses that use our services.” The office for New York Attorney General Letitia James is "reviewing this decision and considering our legal options," a spokesperson said. The FTC didn’t comment. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called it a “deeply disappointing” decision from the court, which “acknowledged” Facebook’s “massive market power but essentially shrugged its shoulders.”
Florida’s social media law doesn’t “regulate the ‘conduct’ of ‘common carriers’ or impose only ‘incidental’ burdens on speech,” NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association replied (in Pacer) Friday to Florida at U.S. District Court in Tallahassee. The state defended its law earlier last week as not unlike common carrier regulation (see 2106220030). The contested state law “overrides online services’ protected editorial judgments, interfering with the messages those judgments express and making the State the ultimate arbiter of private companies’ speech,” the internet industry groups said. “Florida cannot mandate such ‘enforced access’ -- even in the name of ‘enhanc[ing]’ speech, promoting ‘fairness,’ or addressing supposedly ‘vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires.’” Virtual oral argument is Monday at 1:30 p.m. Judge Robert Hinkle said he plans to rule on preliminary injunction by end-of-day June 30.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit returns to in-person arguments Aug. 30 with new COVID-19 health and safety protocols, said the court Tuesday. Fully vaccinated individuals "may forgo wearing masks and physical distancing," but people who are not fully vaccinated "must continue to wear masks and observe physical distancing," it said. The protocols assume all oral arguments after Sept. 1 will be in person, but lawyers may file motions for leave to appear remotely if they declare under penalty of perjury that their physical presence would expose them or their households to an "unacceptable risk of developing serious health complications from COVID-19," it said. The court plans two test runs of the new protocols in July.
Regulating how powerful social media companies control user content is “little different from traditional common carrier regulation long thought to be constitutionally permissible,” said Florida Monday at U.S. District Court in Tallahassee. The state opposed internet industry groups’ motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that Communications Decency Act Section 230 doesn’t preempt Florida from regulating networks that censor free speech: Plaintiffs may say sites are businesses not subject to the First Amendment, but if “Section 230 creates a broad law-free zone in which internet companies can censor however they like, even in bad faith, then serious questions would arise about whether their censorship constitutes state action.” Even if the court disagrees social networks are state actors, “there is nevertheless state action to whatever extent Section 230 preempts Florida law,” argued Florida, citing a 1956 Supreme Court case, Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson. The Supreme Court, in 2006’s Rumsfeld v. FAIR and 1980’s PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, said the First Amendment gives government wide latitude to regulate, Florida said. A footnote responded to plaintiffs’ incredulity about the law exempting companies that own Florida theme parks, which could include Disney and Comcast. It “only applies to a handful of entities, none of which operates a social media platform of significant size,” Florida said. “The narrow exception survives intermediate scrutiny, and in any event should be severed from the rest of the Act if the Court deems it unconstitutional.” Virtual oral argument is June 28 at 1:30 p.m. Judge Robert Hinkle said he plans to rule on preliminary injunction by end-of-day June 30 (see 2106100059). The court received amicus briefs opposing the state law last week, including from the Internet Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and TechFreedom. It might seem “counterintuitive,” but “the answer to Florida lawmakers’ concerns ... is to preserve the constitutional status quo,” wrote EFF. The law vests Florida “with the pure power of the censor,” said ACLU and press and writer groups. Common carriage rules may not be applied to social media, said TechFreedom.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of the Chinese telecom gear vendor's equipment from networks funded by the USF under its national security supply chain rules (see 2001020027). Huawei sought the review in December (see 2012110017). “If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as ‘a sort of junior-varsity’ State Department,” the court “would set the rule aside,” said Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan Friday for the three-judge panel. “But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse.” Huawei is “disappointed” by the ruling and is “assessing” its “options to respond,” a spokesperson emailed: The company continues “to believe the FCC acted without authority in changing” its USF rules. The FCC didn’t comment. Wiley’s Tom Johnson, former FCC general counsel, said he’s “proud to have represented” the U.S. “in this important case.” Matthew Berry, former chief of staff to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, also praised the ruling.