The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its Lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, said an order in docket 1:21-cv-52 signed Wednesday by the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210030). Akin Gump lawyers for test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products urged the court to stick to its original June 30 deadline, arguing USTR shouldn’t be given more time to do a new post hoc review of the submitted Lists 3 and 4A comments and hearing testimony. If USTR needs an additional deadline extension beyond Aug. 1, DOJ “should address in greater detail” USTR’s reasons for the request, said Wednesday’s order. It cited language in the April 1 remand order that the agency may further explain only the justifications it previously gave for imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs without introducing new rationales that didn’t exist before. A joint status report from DOJ and the plaintiffs is due 14 days after the remand results are filed, including a proposed schedule “for the further disposition of this litigation,” said Wednesday’s order.

A former tech employee was convicted Friday of wire fraud and other federal crimes for hacking into Amazon Web Services cloud computing accounts and stealing data and computer power for her own benefit. Seattle resident Paige Thompson, 36, used a tool she built to scan AWS records in search of “misconfigured accounts,” said DOJ. She then used those accounts to hack and download the data of more than 30 entities, including Capital One bank, which alerted the FBI, it said. Thompson's intrusions affected more than 100 million Capital One customers, said DOJ. “With some of her illegal access, she planted cryptocurrency mining software on new servers with the income from the mining going to her online wallet,” it said. “Thompson spent hundreds of hours advancing her scheme, and bragged about her illegal conduct to others via text or online forums.” A jury in U.S. District Court in Seattle deliberated for more than 10 hours before finding her guilty on seven counts, while acquitting her of access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, said DOJ. Wire fraud is punishable by up to 20 years in prison, it said. Thompson faces sentencing on Sept. 15. Attempts to reach her lawyers for comment were unsuccessful.

The U.S. District Court in Washington should allow DOJ 45 days to reopen depositions in an antitrust suit against Google because the platform has finally shared deprivileged documents, the department argued Thursday in a joint filing with the company in docket 1:20-cv-03010 (see 2204130068). DOJ claims Google misused attorney-client privilege to hide business documents relevant to the antitrust lawsuit (see 2203210054 and 2204070065). Google has since produced some 37,000 “deprivileged” documents. New depositions with employees may be in order “due to Google’s late productions of deprivileged documents,” DOJ said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday announced oral argument for Sept. 19 in a separate antitrust lawsuit against Facebook in docket 21-7078. Nearly 50 state attorneys general sued Facebook for allegedly abusing its market dominance, forcing smaller rivals out of business and reducing competition.

Google and tech industry interests are backing Cloudflare in its fight against being found in contempt of the terms of a permanent injunction against a video privacy site/Cloudflare customer (see 2206160024). Google said it's conferring with counsel for the plaintiffs, a variety of Israeli video content companies that sued pirate site Israel.TV, in advance of a possible motion to modify or dissolve the injunctions, in a letter (docket 21-cv-11024) dated Thursday to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of Manhattan. It said it's concerned that injunctions bind the parties, their agents and others participating with them, but the injunctions in this case bid various third parties who fall outside those categories, "including Google." Nor do the injunctions make clear what the bound parties are supposed to do or not do, it said. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, in a request to file an amicus brief in opposition to the contempt motion, said they "are greatly concerned by the possible consequences that a finding of contempt, and any enforcement of the underlying injunction against unaffiliated non-party online service providers, will have on the due process rights of those service providers, and on the free speech and due process rights of Internet users generally." They said in the case of a copyright infringement suit against a website operator, proceedings against unaffiliated service providers "present a particular danger of blocking lawful and constitutionally protected speech, and of imposing unfair and unnecessary compliance burdens." Outside counsel for the video content companies didn't comment Friday.

The Supreme Court could soon be asked to review Florida’s social media law. In a joint motion Thursday at U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, Florida, plaintiffs NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) asked the district court to stay further proceedings until SCOTUS disposes with "forthcoming petition(s) for a writ of certiorari.” Parties agreed on a June 13 telephone conference that the "case warrants further review" in the Supreme Court and that they would file a joint motion at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “to stay issuance of the mandate by that Court pending Supreme Court review,” they said. The 11th Circuit ruled last month that Florida may not restrict content moderation by social media platforms, while lifting a temporary injunction on most of the state law’s disclosure rules (see 2205230049). The Supreme Court on May 31 narrowly stopped a similar Texas law from being enforced (see 2206010060).

Longport and Irvintgon, New Jersey, appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lower court's dismissal of their suit seeking franchise fees from Netflix and Hulu under the state's Cable TV Act (see 2205230028) per a notice of appeal Friday (docket 2:21-cv-15303). Counsel for the streamers didn't comment.

Cloudflare and Israeli video content providers are at odds over Cloudflare's alleged role in now-defunct pirate video site Israel.tv. Cloudflare said it can't remove content from customers' websites, so the contempt motion against it for allegedly violating the default judgment and permanent injunction awarded the plaintiffs in April is "puzzling," the cybersecurity services firm told the U.S. District Court in Manhattan Thursday in an opposition (docket 21-cv-11024). It said the contempt motion seeks to direct Cloudflare outside the injunction's scope even though the problem with the pirate site was resolved because Israel.tv is no longer available online. The content company plaintiffs said in the contempt motion if Cloudflare quit providing its content delivery network services provided to Israell.tv "then the infringing service might be prevented from continuing its illegal conduct."

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued revised protocols Tuesday for in-person oral arguments beginning with the July court sitting and until further notice. The new rules "clarify and expand the testing or medical documentation available" to arguing counsel allowing them to enter the court. Before entering the National Courts Building, the Federal Circuit will require counsel and attendees to present documentation of (1) a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test administered in the 72 hours before oral argument, (2) a negative rapid antigen test administered within the 24 hours before oral argument, or (3) a positive test result from one of the above forms of testing from a sample taken during the previous 90 days along with a signed letter from a licensed healthcare provider or public health official saying the party has been cleared for travel. The court also updated its certification of compliance form.

Xperi’s Adeia intellectual property licensing brand is “disappointed” in the Federal Court of Canada’s Monday’s ruling in favor of Videotron, said Xperi, noting the company is “exploring all our options, including appealing the decision” on Videotron’s legacy illico platform. The court said each of the asserted claims of the four Rovi Guide patents involved in the case were invalid. Last year, Xperi filed a second lawsuit (see 2105240024), accusing Videotron of infringing four different patents involving its Helix platform and advanced DVR functionality, delivering video programming in multiple formats and switching between broadcast and streaming programs, Xperi said; that lawsuit is ongoing. “We will continue to pursue our rights as we seek a mutually acceptable agreement with Videotron to allow the ongoing use of our patented technology, just as we have done broadly with the other major Canadian and US Pay-TV providers,” said Adeia President Paul Davis. The patents in the illico ruling are a “very small fraction” of Adeia’s overall portfolio and about 1% of the total Canadian portfolio, Davis said. The ruling isn't expected to have an impact on 2022 guidance. On Tuesday, Pierre Karl Peladeau, CEO, of Videotron parent Quebecor, said the ruling is "an important victory for Videotron and all technology companies that grapple with organizations whose practices are akin to those of patent trolls, which create no value for society and cost millions of dollars per year." Patents should "reward innovation, not hinder it," he said. "We have shown that businesses should not give in to unjustified threats. Quebecor and Videotron will continue to vigorously defend their interests." Both companies cited confidentiality requirements in the case. Videotron said the court's decision should be released in coming days.

The Supreme Court denied rehearing in a mass surveillance case involving AT&T and Verizon customers Monday (see 2201210050). The court didn’t offer an explanation in Jewel v. NSA. A 9th Circuit three-judge panel denied a petition for panel rehearing in October with little explanation.