International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara set an April 2022 target date for completing the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations that LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and MediaTek, MStar and Realtek video processors infringe four DivX patents on adaptive bit rate streaming (see 2010140042), said her order (login required) posted Wednesday in docket 337-TA-1222. Under the ITC’s “pandemic evacuation” plan, ALJs won’t accept filings on paper, CDs or other physical media, she said. Hearings will be on Webex until the ITC issues notice that its headquarters “will once more be open” to the public, she said. Her order scheduled the first evidentiary hearing for July 7 “at a location to be announced closer to the Hearing date.”

International Trade Commissioners voted to open a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Philips allegations that Dell, HP and Lenovo PCs, Hisense, LG and TCL smart TVs and Intel, MediaTek and Realtek processors infringe Philips high-bandwidth digital content protection patents (see 2010080048 or 2010060026), said a notice (login required) posted Monday in docket 337-TA-1224. Respondents have 20 days to respond. The investigation was assigned (login required) to Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot. Philips seeks an exclusion order against the allegedly infringing products and components.

The Copyright Office will recommend readopting “all existing exemptions” under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201, the agency announced Thursday with an NPRM in the eighth triennial proceeding (see 2006220041). The CO based the decision on a “lack of meaningful opposition” amid renewal petitions. The notice includes 17 proposed classes of exemptions, for which there will be three rounds of comment. Supportive and neutral comments are due Dec. 14, oppositions Feb. 9, and replies from the first group March 10.

The International Trade Commission launched a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations that LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and MediaTek, MStar and Realtek video processors infringe four DivX patents on adaptive bit rate streaming (see 2009160052), said a posting (login required) Wednesday in docket 337-TA-1222. The ITC also denied Realtek’s request for a 100-day adjudication into the chipmaker’s challenge that DivX was unlikely to meet the “domestic industry” requirement under commission rules (see 2009260001). “The suggested issues for resolution appear likely to require significant third party discovery and thus may be too complex to be decided within 100 days of institution,” said a Wednesday order (login required). The investigation was assigned to Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara, said a separate notice (login required) Wednesday. The respondents will have 20 days to file replies to the investigation notice after they're served with the papers. None commented Wednesday. DivX's Sept. 10 complaint seeks an exclusion order against the allegedly infringing products.

The American National Standards Institute gave ANSI.org a face-lift to make it more mobile-friendly and enhance features, said the nonprofit Monday. A “quick-action select box” on the homepage gives “short-cut access” to commonly used items.

Comments are due Nov. 8, rebuttals Nov. 22, identifying online and physical piracy and counterfeit markets to be considered for inclusion on the Trump administration’s 2020 Notorious Markets list, said an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notice in Thursday’s Federal Register. The “issue focus” of the 2020 list will be on the use of e-commerce platforms and “other third-party intermediaries to facilitate the importation of counterfeit and pirated goods” into the U.S., it said. “The rapid growth of e-commerce platforms has helped fuel the growth of counterfeit and pirated goods” into a $500 billion industry, it said. “This illicit trade has an enormous impact on the American economy by eroding the competitiveness of American workers, manufacturers and innovation.”

Google wireless audio devices infringe five Sonos multiroom audio patents, complained Sonos Tuesday (in Pacer), further escalating their bitter intellectual property brawl. “In the face of Google’s unrelenting infringement, Sonos has no choice but to bring this suit,” said the complaint in U.S. District Court in Waco, Texas. “Sonos has already sued Google for infringing patents on its first group of inventions involving the set-up, control, playback, and synchronization of wireless playback devices.” The new case involves a “second group” of inventions that “tackle the novel technological challenges of how to stream music from a cloud-based service,” plus configuring how “multiple playback devices work together,” it said. The new body of patents also describe “how to dynamically adjust the equalization of a playback device based on the environment in which the playback device is operating,” it said. Sonos’ first complaint is pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles (see 2001070041). Google responded in June, alleging in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that Sonos stole “substantial volumes” of Google’s patented search, audio processing and streaming technology (see 2006110024). The companies remain in a fight at the International Trade Commission that shows no sign of abating over the same patents at play in Los Angeles (see 2002060070). The new complaint “illustrates the depth and breadth of our intellectual property as well as our continued innovation, and indicates the degree to which we believe Google has copied our innovations,” emailed a Sonos spokesperson. “Google has chosen to double down on its disregard for IP and smaller American inventors and we believe it is vitally important that Sonos, both for its own sake and for that of other smaller innovative companies, stand up to monopolists who try to copy and subsidize their way to further domination.” Sonos has made "misleading statements about our history of working together," emailed Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda. "Our technology and devices were designed independently. We deny their claims vigorously, and will be defending against them.”

Nokia sought a “supplemental” protective order Monday at the International Trade Commission safeguarding Qualcomm’s source code and other confidential materials it wants to access, said a motion (login required) in docket 337-TA-1208. Qualcomm is a “non-party” in the Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into accusations that Lenovo laptops, desktops and tablets infringe five Nokia patents (see 2008050008), but supplies Lenovo components related to the allegedly infringing “functionality,” said Nokia: The Qualcomm materials are “competitively sensitive” and “not normally shared with any third party, absent strict confidentiality.” Qualcomm worries the investigation’s existing protective order doesn’t provide “adequate protection against misuse or disclosure of its sensitive proprietary information, and has requested the entry of an addendum,” it said. “Enhanced confidentiality protection for source code is appropriate” under ITC rules, it said.

Comments are due Oct. 6 at the International Trade Commission on the Tariff Act Section 337 import ban Q3 Networking seeks on routers, controllers and other networking products from Arris, Aruba Networks, CommScope, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Netgear and Ruckus Wireless, said Monday’s Federal Register. Q3's Sept. 22 complaint (login required) in docket 337-3493 alleges the products infringe four patents on data encryption, transmission and network management protocols. Excluding the products won’t harm U.S. consumers through “increased price or reduced availability of alternative products,” said Q3. An import ban would “serve the public interest” by enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights and “protecting the public from unfair competition,” it said. None of the proposed respondents commented Tuesday.

Though the Small Business Administration coordinates with the Patent and Trademark Office to provide intellectual property training to small enterprises and inventors, “it has not fully implemented some statutory requirements that can further enhance this coordination,” and the work is “inconsistent,” reported GAO Monday. The 2017 Small Business Innovation Protection Act requires Small Business Development Centers to work with PTO on IP training programs at the local level, but only two of the 12 centers that GAO interviewed had done so, said the report. SBA officials told GAO they're in the process of implementing the statute’s requirements. “Incorporating selected leading practices for collaboration, such as documenting the partnership agreement and clarifying roles and responsibilities,” could help SBA and PTO “fully and consistently communicate their existing resources to their partners and programs, enabling them to refer these resources to small businesses and inventors,” it said. SBA didn't respond to questions. "As the report points out," PTO offers "multiple programs that help small businesses and inventors with acquiring intellectual property protections, which can help protect creative works or ideas,” emailed spokesperson Paul Fucito. “These programs, such as the Inventors Assistance Center, are aimed at assisting the public, especially small businesses and inventors, with intellectual property protections. We continue to seek out new ways to improve our reach into the small business.”