Attorney General William Barr said the U.S. government and its allies should be “actively considering” proposals to bolster Ericsson and Nokia “through American ownership of a controlling stake, either directly or through a consortium of private American and allied companies” to make them more effective competitors against Chinese telecom equipment maker Huawei. Barr’s remarks at a Center for Strategic & International Studies conference came hours after Huawei sued Verizon in two U.S. district courts in Texas for allegedly violating the Chinese company’s patents on networking technology. Verizon abused patents via a range of services, including on Fios and network infrastructure components that “facilitate communication through Verizon’s networks,” Huawei said in its complaint. Verizon “profited greatly” from its abuses of the patents, which netted it $29.8 billion, Huawei claims. The lawsuit “nothing more than a PR stunt,” Verizon said. “This lawsuit is a sneak attack on our company and the entire tech ecosystem. Huawei’s real target is not Verizon; it is any country or company that defies it. The action lacks merit, and we look forward to vigorously defending ourselves.” Barr said U.S. backing of Ericsson and Nokia is preferable to the “pie in the sky” proposals supported by others in President Donald Trump’s administration to work with U.S. tech companies to develop open radio access networks software for 5G networks aimed at stemming concerns about the security of Huawei equipment (see 2002040056). The open RAN “approach is completely untested, and would take many years to get off the ground, and would not be ready for prime time for a decade, if ever,” Barr said. “What we need today is a product that can win contracts right now -- a proven infrastructure that network operators will make a long-term commitment to today. In other words, we need a product that can blunt and turnaround Huawei’s momentum currently.” Ericsson and Nokia are the “only two companies that can compete with Huawei right now,” Barr said. “They have quality, reliable products that can guarantee performance. They have proven successful in managing customers’ migration from 4G to 5G. The main concern about these suppliers is that they have neither Huawei’s scale nor the backing of a powerful country with a large market, like China.” Putting the U.S.’ “large market and financial muscle behind one or both of these firms would make it a more formidable competitor and eliminate concerns over its staying power,” he said. Barr urged the FCC to “move decisively” toward an auction of spectrum on the 3.7-4.2 GHz C band and “bring resolution” on the L band (see 2002060057). Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel criticized Barr, tweeting that it’s “becoming clear as day” the Trump administration “does not have a coordinated plan for our 5G future. We need one.”

It’s not possible to create an encryption back door for police that wouldn’t be “discovered and exploited by hackers” and other criminals, CTA CEO Gary Shapiro said Wednesday. “Encryption is critical in protecting our country and our most private information,” he wrote. “But the current encryption debate wrongly pits technology and national security against each other.”

“History suggests” that new generations of video codecs are developed on seven-to-nine-year “cycles” and that each new generation reduces bit rate by up to half, said ATSC’s Planning Team 4 (PT4) in a “summary” report on future video technologies approved Nov. 19 and posted Tuesday at atsc.org. PT4, chaired by Glenn Reitmeier, NBCUniversal senior vice president-advanced technology standards, began its review of future video technologies to study what “methods” are “available to us to add a codec” to ATSC 3.0, said ATSC in March (see 1903210057). MPEG’s “work plan” for the development of the next-generation Versatile Video Coding codec to be completed this year is targeting 50 percent “efficiency improvement” compared with the H.265 codec built into ATSC 3.0, said the report. MPEG also is working on the Essential Video Coding codec, which seeks “core profile performance” similar to H.265, using a set of “royalty-free coding tools,” also planned for completion in 2020, it said. EVC would be administered under “a simple, transparent licensing structure for a more efficient main profile promised within two years after publication,” it said. It’s “possible” that future video codec development “may become increasingly optimized toward specific applications,” said the report. “Given this possibility, future codec considerations for ATSC standards should include requirements driven by broadcast operations and business models, particularly in requirements such as compression efficiency and latency. ATSC needs to “communicate” those requirements to MPEG and other codec developers in “appropriate liaisons,” it said.

The Supreme Court on Friday set oral argument for a copyright case between Google and Oracle (see 2001130050), and for a trademark case between Booking.com and the Patent and Trademark Office. Google v. Oracle America is set for 10 a.m. March 24. PTO v. Booking.com is set for 11 a.m. March 23. At question in the latter case is whether the brand name Booking.com is a valid trademark.

The Patent and Trademark Office granted CTA its second deadline extension to file a statement of use (SOU) in its June 2018 application to trademark a certification logo for over-the-counter hearing aids (see 1806250018), agency records show. CTA created the logo to identify reputable OTC hearing aids for consumers with mild or moderate hearing loss that meet minimum performance specs in the ANSI/CTA-2051 standard approved in January 2017. PTO requires SOUs to prevent applicants from hoarding trademarks with no intention of using them in normal commerce. CTA is hamstrung from filing the SOU because it needs to await the FDA’s expected release by late summer of proposed rules establishing the OTC hearing-aid category under legislation President Donald Trump signed into law in August 2017 (see 2001170050). A trademark applicant is entitled to up to five SOU deadline extensions of six months each, but must file the SOU within three years after receiving PTO's notice of allowance (NOA) that clears the application for final approval. PTO issued CTA its hearing-aid NOA a year ago Wednesday.

Advocates for tech and for the disabled arguing against an International Trade Commission import ban on Google smart speakers (see 2001250004) aren't “disinterested” third parties, said Sonos (login required) in ITC docket 337-3428. “Most receive substantial funding from Google, which was largely undisclosed in their submissions.” The public, including those with disabilities, “will not lose access to these features when the accused products are excluded,” Sonos said. Other vendors “can and will fill any void created by the absence of the infringing Google products,” it said. “Google itself could choose to provide non-infringing products.” The third-party submissions don't “argue that Google is the only supplier of devices that can be used by disabled people to control home functions,” said Sonos. It cited Statista estimating more than “a dozen other manufacturers of smart speakers” would be available.

CTA’s application to register NEXTGEN TV as a certification mark for ATSC 3.0-compliant consumer goods (see 1909190066) is scheduled for Feb. 25 Trademark Official Gazette publication, a Patent and Trademark Office status page shows. Opposition parties would have 30 days from that date to try to block the registration. A notice of allowance (NOA) would follow if the application clears the opposition period, giving CTA six months to file a statement of use (SOU), one of the last stages before the logo would proceed to a registration certificate. CTA, when it files the SOU, will provide “a copy of the standards governing the use of the certification mark” on 3.0-compliant goods that “have been evaluated to meet certain use and performance” metrics, said the association's Sept. 25 application. A “potential bar” in PTO’s approval of the NEXTGEN TV logo was lifted this month when Sharp let lapse at the Jan. 4 deadline for filing its SOU on a NXT-GEN consumer TV trademark and logo it applied for in December 2018 (see 2001140030). The application had progressed to the NOA stage in June, but PTO declared it dead Jan. 6. “With the pause in our efforts to re-enter the US consumer TV market,” Sharp was “not able to show usage on a product in the time period required to continue the trademark application so we had to give it up,” emailed Sharp Home Electronics President Jim Sanduski.

Antitrust authorities cleared the way for Accenture to buy Symantec’s cybersecurity services business from Broadcom. Financial terms of the deal announced during CES week weren’t disclosed. It’s expected to close in March. An FTC early termination notice dated Monday and released Tuesday ended the transaction's Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period.

A University of Michigan engineering professor accused Apple of stealing his invention for a wrist-mountable heart-rate monitor and using it in the Apple Watch. Apple is guilty of willful infringement of U.S. patent 10,517,484 because the professor, Mohammed Islam, discussed his then-patent-pending invention with Apple employees in at least three face-to-face meetings in Cupertino, California, between June 2014 and July 2016, alleged his complaint (in Pacer) Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Islam offered to license his technology to Apple during the encounters and in follow-up emails, but the company "declined," said the complaint. Apple emailed Islam in December 2017 and abruptly asked him to stop sharing his invention with the company, it said. Islam seeks damages “adequate to compensate for Apple’s infringement,” plus an order “permanently enjoining” the company from further infringement, it said. Apple didn’t comment Monday. Islam’s complaint is at least the second in recent weeks from an academic accusing Apple of misappropriating patents for cardiovascular functionality in the Apple Watch. Dr. Joseph Wiesel, a board-certified cardiologist on the faculty of the New York University School of Medicine, alleged last month that Apple stole his atrial fibrillation-detection invention and built it into the wearable, also after numerous “engagements” with the company in which he tried unsuccessfully to strike a licensing arrangement (see 1912310002).

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review three patent eligibility cases challenging the high court’s Alice decision (see 1406200031). The high court denied certiorari for Chargepoint v. Semaconnect and two separate cases titled Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG.