The Supreme Court ruled in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee that the Patent and Trademark Office's ability to institute inter partes reviews via the 2011 America Invents Act isn't subject to appeals. The Supreme Court also upheld Patent and Trademark Appeal Board's patent claims interpretation standard. Cuozzo sought a Supreme Court review after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in 2015 that AIA bars parties from challenging PTAB authority to conduct IPRs. Cuozzo unsuccessfully defended its patent on an interface for displaying a vehicle's speed and the speed limit at a particular location during a Garmin-initiated PTAB IPR. “Applying the broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review is not, as Cuozzo suggests, unfair to a patent holder, who may move to amend at least once in the review process, and who has had several opportunities to amend in the original application process," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's majority opinion Monday, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Anthony Kennedy. “And though the application of one standard in inter partes review and another in district court proceedings may produce inconsistent outcomes, that structure is inherent to Congress' regulatory design, and it is also consistent with past practice, as the patent system has long provided different tracks for the review and adjudication of patent claims.” Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion that partially concurred and partially dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Alito's opinion. Congress has given PTAB “considerable authority” to review patent claims but has also “cabined that power by imposing significant conditions on the Patent Office's institution of patent review proceedings,” Alito said. “Unlike the Court, I do not think that Congress intended to shield the Patent Office's compliance -- or noncompliance -- with these limits from all judicial scrutiny.” PTO believes the Supreme Court's ruling “will allow [PTAB] to maintain its vital mission of effectively and efficiently resolving patentability disputes while providing faster, less expensive alternatives to district court litigation,” said Director Michelle Lee in a statement.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday against claims by Universal Music Group's Capitol Records, EMI and other record labels that Vimeo ignored infringing content posted to its website, finding that pre-1972 recordings included in videos are covered by the safe harbor provisions in Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 512. A U.S. District Court in New York ruled in 2014 that Section 512's safe harbor provisions didn't extend to pre-1972 recordings posted online because they were protected by New York state law. Additionally, “the mere fact that a video contains all or virtually all of a 'recognizable,' copyrighted sound recording and was viewed in some fashion by a service provider’s employee is insufficient to prove knowledge or red flag knowledge of infringement; and Plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to support the imputation of knowledge to Vimeo through the theory of willful blindness,” Judge Pierre Leval said for the three-judge 2nd Circuit panel. Judges Peter Hall and Gerard Lynch joined Leval in the unanimous opinion. The purpose of the Section 512 safe harbor provisions “was to make economically feasible the provision of valuable Internet services while expanding protections of the interests of copyright owners through the new notice-and-takedown provision," Leval said. "To construe [Section 512] as leaving service providers subject to liability under state copyright laws for postings by users of infringements of which the service providers were unaware would defeat the very purpose Congress sought to achieve in passing the statute.” Vimeo believes the 2nd Circuit's ruling is “a significant win for not just Vimeo, but all online platforms that empower creators to share content with the world,” a spokesman said in a statement. “The court rightly preserved the balance struck by the DMCA in protecting rights holders and service providers, and we are very pleased with the decision.” UMG didn't comment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated three petitions for a review of the Copyright Royalty Board’s 2016-20 noninteractive webcasting rate-setting (Web IV) ruling with SoundExchange’s petition in docket 16-1159 (in Pacer). The three additional appeals of the CRB ruling were by musician George Johnson, the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System and the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (all in Pacer). SoundExchange’s statement of issues to be raised and other initial filings are due July 1, and other parties must file their statements by July 11, the D.C Circuit said in a Thursday order (in Pacer). The CRB’s final version of its 2016-2020 noninteractive webcasting ruling, released in early May, set rates at 0.17 cent per performance on nonsubscription services and 0.22 cent per performance on subscription services (see 1605020058). SoundExchange is seen as likely to focus its appeal at least partially on CRB's use of Pandora’s past direct licensing deals with independent music label rights consortium Merlin and independent label Naxos as benchmarks for the Web IV rate-setting (see 1606010065).

The comment deadline for the Copyright Office’s notice of inquiry on whether to extend its existing mandatory deposit requirement was extended to Aug. 18, the CO said in Friday's Federal Register. The CO said in May it’s seeking comment on whether to extend the deposit requirement, which currently includes online-only publications, to also include online-only books and sound recordings (see 1605180067).

The DOJ urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's May ruling that whittled down the amount of damages that Samsung is required to pay Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit Samsung lost in 2012. The Supreme Court partially granted Samsung's petition in March for a review of the Federal Circuit ruling, which pared down the amount of damages Apple was entitled to receive to $548 million. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case only on the issue of determining damages, while Samsung also sought a review on the issue of defining the scope of what constitutes a patentable design element (see 1603210057). The DOJ didn't ask in its amicus brief for the Supreme Court to side specifically with either Apple or Samsung, instead urging the court to remand the case to the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. Further litigation at the San Jose court is needed because it's unclear based on the evidence presented whether Samsung has proven the damages Apple is entitled to should be calculated based on infringement of specific phone components rather than on the total profits from a phone, DOJ said. Samsung similarly argued in its opening brief that “at a minimum, a new trial is necessary.” Apple didn't comment on DOJ's amicus brief. A Samsung spokesman pointed to the DOJ brief as further evidence of the “overwhelming support” from outside parties in favor of the company's appeal of the Federal Circuit ruling.

Sony PS4s, Blu-ray players and digital TVs violate one or more among 10 Broadcom patents covering AV decoding methods and other technologies, alleged a complaint (in Pacer) against Sony that Broadcom and its Avago Technologies parent filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Avago two years ago acquired LSI Corp., including “its substantial patent portfolio,” the complaint said. The portfolio “covers innovative technologies developed by LSI as well as cutting-edge technologies invented by its predecessor companies,” including Agere, AT&T, Bell Labs and Lucent, the complaint said. “These companies were preeminent in the semiconductor industry and at the forefront of technological innovations in this and other areas.” Avago this year acquired Broadcom, “consolidating significant technological knowledge and substantial patent portfolios under the umbrella” of a new entity, Broadcom Limited, which is responsible for enforcing those portfolios, it said. “Sony has licensed certain portions of the patent portfolios of LSI and its predecessor companies for five decades,” it said. Sony’s most recent LSI license lapsed in 2014, it said. “Despite continuing to use the various technological advancements provided by the LSI patent portfolio, Sony has failed to compensate Broadcom for the use of these technologies,” it said. Broadcom “has made a number of attempts to resolve Sony’s continued infringement amicably and has engaged in extensive licensing negotiations with Sony,” but to no avail. Sony spokesman Mack Araki, in a Tuesday email, declined comment.

The Copyright Office on Tuesday sought meetings with stakeholders in advance of a planned legislative recommendation on potential revisions to Copyright Act Section 108 to update to account for the digital age the statute's conditional exemption allowing libraries and archives to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works, including musical works and motion pictures. The CO has been exploring potential updates to Section 108 since 2005 and a Library of Congress representative was one of several who urged the House IP Subcommittee in 2014 to revamp Section 108 (see report in the April 3, 2014, issue). The CO said in a notice in the Federal Register it's seeking to hold the meetings in Washington from later this month into July. The CO is exploring “several remaining issues,” including whether to recommend the Section 108 exemption include public performances and displays, provisions concerning copies for users, security measures, public access and third-party outsourcing, the office said. Stakeholders must schedule meetings by July 7, the CO said.

The Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS) and independent musician George Johnson separately confirmed to us Wednesday that they petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the Copyright Royalty Board's 2016-20 noninteractive webcasting rate-setting ruling. SoundExchange also filed an appeal of the CRB’s ruling, which several music industry lawyers said faces difficult odds at the D.C. Circuit (see 1606010065). CRB published a final version of its 2016-2020 noninteractive webcasting royalty rates in early May, setting the rates at 0.17 cent per performance on nonsubscription services and 0.22 cent per performance on subscription services (see 1605020058). IBS disputed the current Web IV ruling saying it's “in excess of Constitutional and statutory authority, is in violation of the public's Constitutional and statutory rights and interests, is in violation of the Copyright Act, as amended, is not supported by the record, is arbitrary and capricious, and deprives petitioner of due process.” Johnson said he's seeking a D.C. Circuit review on a pro se, on one's own behalf, basis. Neither the IBS nor Johnson petitions had been entered into the Pacer database and hadn’t received case numbers at our deadline.

A jury in U.S. District Court in San Francisco found in favor of Google Thursday in the second trial related to Oracle’s software copyright infringement lawsuit against the company. The jury said Google’s use of the coding and names contained in Oracle’s Java application programming interface (API) technology in its Android mobile operating system qualifies under the fair use doctrine. Google faced up to $9.3 billion in Oracle-proposed damages. The U.S. tech industry was closely watching the second Oracle v. Google trial, given its major implications for the scope of fair use and the financial implications for the U.S. software market (see 1605090048). The jury’s verdict is "a win for the Android ecosystem, for the Java programming community, and for software developers who rely on open and free programming languages to build innovative consumer products,” Google said in a statement. Oracle plans to appeal the jury’s verdict because the company believes “Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market,” Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley said in a statement. “Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google’s illegal behavior.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the fair use question in Oracle v. Google to the San Francisco district court in 2014, also saying Oracle’s APIs are copyrightable (see 1405120040). The Supreme Court declined last year to grant Google’s petition for a writ of certiorari on the Federal Circuit’s API copyright ruling (see 1506290062).

The Copyright Office sought comment Wednesday on an NPRM that would significantly reduce the fee for online service providers to designate agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512. The CO is seeking to lower the fee to $6 per designation in anticipation of a switch from using paper forms to designate those agents to an online filing system. The designation fee framework currently includes an initial $105 fee and an additional $35 fee for each of up to 10 alternate designated agents. “The office does not believe that an additional fee to include alternate names with a designation to be warranted, as the office does not currently foresee appreciable additional costs” via the online process, the CO said in a notice in the Federal Register. “This significantly lower proposed fee reflects the far greater efficiency” of the CO's online filing system. The CO said it anticipates it will receive about 7,000 designation filings each year at an estimated annual processing cost of about $41,000. Comments on the fee proposal are due June 24.