Google said it's considering its next steps in its long-running legal dispute with Oracle over its use of coding and names in Oracle's Java application programming interface (API) technology in its Android mobile operating system after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Google Tuesday. The three-judge Federal Circuit panel remanded the case to U.S. District Court in San Francisco for another jury trial, reversing a federal jury's 2016 verdict that Google's fair use of Oracle's API technology qualifies as a transformative fair use (see 1605260067). Oracle's appeal of the case to the Federal Circuit last year drew support from MPAA, while many tech sector stakeholders backed Google (see 1702220031 and 1705300064). “Although Google could have furthered copyright’s goals of promoting creative expression and innovation by developing its own APIs, or by licensing Oracle’s APIs for use in developing a new platform, it chose to copy Oracle’s creative efforts instead,” said Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley in the Federal Circuit panel's ruling, which was joined by Circuit Judges Jay Plager and Richard Taranto. “There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform.” The Federal Circuit's opinion “upholds fundamental principles of copyright law and makes clear that Google violated the law,” said Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley in a statement. “This type of ruling will make apps and online services more expensive for users,” Google said in a statement Wednesday.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., applauded the administration for addressing “rampant piracy and counterfeiting” through foreign trade negotiations in its Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’s (IPEC) annual report to Congress. “I am encouraged by the IPEC’s annual report, which lays out a thorough strategy to continue economic growth by ensuring American innovation is protected and able to flourish,” Goodlatte said Thursday.

China moved into second place as a source of international patent applications filed in 2017 under the World Intellectual Property Organization’s patent cooperation treaty, reported WIPO Wednesday. China closed in on long-time leader U.S., and at the current pace of filings will overtake the U.S. within three years as “the largest source of applications,” said WIPO. China’s Huawei and ZTE were the world’s top two filers overall in 2017, followed by Intel, Mitsubishi and Qualcomm, it said. “Overall, inventors from around the world filed 243,500 international patent applications via WIPO" in 2017, 4.5 percent more than a year earlier, it said.

Ericsson for “nearly a year” has been trying to negotiate with LG to renew their “reciprocal” license agreements on 2G, 3G and 4G cellular patents, but “these negotiations have been unsuccessful because LG refuses to negotiate in good faith,” Ericsson complained (in Pacer) Monday in U.S. District Court in Sherman, Texas. LG didn't comment. LG refuses to pay a royalty on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms for a license to Ericsson’s essential patents, and refuses to license its essential patents on FRAND terms to Ericsson, said the complaint. “LG’s refusal to pay a FRAND rate, while continuing its unlicensed use of Ericsson’s essential patents, gives it an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors." Ericsson seeks a court declaration it complied with its FRAND commitments under European Telecommunications Standards Institute rules and that LG “breached” its own FRAND obligations. It also seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against LG for infringing Ericsson’s U.S. patent (6,633,550) for a radio transceiver on a chip granted in October 2003.

All-in royalty rates for licensing of musical works for all service offerings between 2018 and 2022 could range from 11.4 percent to 15.1 percent of revenue and 22 percent to 26.2 percent of total content cost, said the Copyright Royalty Board in a redacted initial determination for the rates released Monday. The initial determination is subject to statutory review by the acting register of copyrights, according to the announcement, and the final determination will be released after the judges rule on motions for rehearing, the acting register of copyrights completes a review and the librarian of Congress approves the final document. An "all-in" rate is inclusive of the producer royalty, meaning the record company can limit royalty exposure by capping the artist royalty rate, according to a blog by industry lawyer Chris Castle.

The UHD Alliance landed a trademark registration certification Tuesday for one of three versions of its Ultra HD Premium certification logo for devices and content with 4K resolution, HDR and wide color gamut, Patent and Trademark Office records show. In November, PTO examiners ordered the alliance to submit a copy “of the standards used to determine who is authorized to use the certification mark.” The alliance responded Jan. 18, linking to “regulations governing the use” of Ultra HD Premium that previously weren’t public. Though no certified content is listed at ExperienceUHD.com, five studios are "utilizing the Ultra HD Premium logo on their 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray movies with an increased level of releases occurring throughout the coming year," said alliance President Mike Fidler.

The Copyright Office is extending to June 14 the deadline for comments on its NPRM on royalty reporting practices of cable operators under Section 111 of the Copyright Act and proposed revisions to the statement of account forms, it said Thursday. Replies are due July 6.

Customs and Border Protection needs more authority to combat counterfeiters, the Senate Finance Committee was told. Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner in CBP's Office of Trade, said it will take a few months of consultation with the private sector to say what kind of authority. Ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., pressed for a deadline, and when Smith demurred, asked her to report back within 60 days. "I will do my best," she responded. Smith said Congress might also need to increase penalties for counterfeit goods. Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told her, "We'll see what we can do to back you up and help you." The hearing highlighted a recent GAO report that 20 of 47 items ordered by auditors from online sellers were counterfeit (see 1803060042). CBP reported that intellectual property rights seizures rose again in FY 2017, though the dollar value fell. Wyden noted solving the counterfeiting issue "isn’t going to be as simple as putting a few more policy tools in CBP’s kit." Agency hiring difficulties hurt its ability to protect "U.S. consumers and businesses from illegal and unfairly traded goods," he said: "The internet has transformed" commerce and "CBP is too often playing catch-up ball tracking these fake products down." Smith said "the scope of the challenge is tremendous." Cooperation from package shippers is improving, she told senators. The agency receives advance electronic data from Chinese and Hong Kong mail services; 88 percent of counterfeits originate from those locales.

The Music Modernization Act (HR-4706/S-2334) (see 1802090021) would benefit consumers by establishing a more competitive music market, Public Knowledge said Wednesday in a letter to Judiciary Committee leadership in both chambers. The group offered reservations about the Classics Act (HR-3301) over concerns works wouldn't be fully “federalized.” The group applauded bill author Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., "for including a number of pro-competitive and pro-consumer provisions in the Act, such as a blanket license, new performing rights organization, and a searchable, publicly accessible database of licensing information,” said Policy Counsel Meredith Rose. A House Judiciary Committee aide told us Wednesday the committee expects to mark up a package of music copyright bills in the coming weeks.

Contractor WinMagic owes Samsung SDS America (SDSA) $277,100 in refunds for botching the installation of encryption software for itself and an unnamed client, alleged the U.S. subsidiary of Samsung’s global information technology company in a federal complaint Thursday. SDSA signed an April 2016 contract to license WinMagic’s SecureDoc Enterprise encryption software for its own use and for “its client’s business operations,” said the complaint (in Pacer), filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey. The complaint didn’t identify the client, but a copy of the attached contract suggested it was a large customer, because it said SDSA ordered 7,000 copies of the SecureDoc software. SDSA’s representatives “specifically and unequivocally advised WinMagic that the SecureDoc solution must be compatible with the encryption configuration that SDSA and its client were required to utilize on the computers used in their business operations based upon the requirements of their respective parent companies,” said the complaint. WinMagic nevertheless failed to properly “configure the SecureDoc solution to be compatible with the very encryption requirements that SDSA previously identified as a mandatory component” of the contract, it said. Almost immediately after WinMagic technicians began installing SecureDoc in September 2016, SDSA “provided WinMagic with written notice of serious issues” with the encryption software that “were so severe that SDSA was wholly unable to use the technology solution for any purpose,” it said. Three months later, SDSA canceled the contract and demanded its refund, “consistent with the express warranty provision contained” in the agreement, it said. “To date, WinMagic has failed and refused to provide a full refund of the $277,100 that SDSA paid to WinMagic for SecureDoc,” said the complaint, which alleged fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and other accusations. WinMagic representatives didn’t comment Friday.