AT&T won't directly or indirectly communicate or seek out competitively sensitive information from any multichannel video programming distributor, except for a lawful purpose, under the draft settlement (in Pacer) between it and DOJ filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The settlement -- which would end a 2016 lawsuit calling AT&T-owned DirecTV the ringleader of an information-sharing cabal of MVPDs trying to negotiate with regional sports network SportsNet LA (see 1611020034) -- also requires that the company institute an antitrust training and compliance program for executives and workers involved in content carriage negotiations, and name an antitrust compliance officer. In a statement, acting Assistant Attorney General-Antitrust Division Brent Snyder said, “When competitors email, text, or otherwise share confidential and strategically sensitive information with each other to avoid competing, consumers lose." AT&T in a statement said it was "pleased to have resolved the matter to the satisfaction of all parties."

NAB backed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday against FilmOn X streaming broadcast programming, in a case by Comcast's NBCUniversal, ABC, CBS, Fox and others (see 1703210023). "The court reached the correct conclusion as supported by NAB’s amicus brief,” a spokesman told us Wednesday. The big four networks are NAB members, he noted.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous that Dish Network's subscription agreement clearly makes it not liable for any interruption in service, so a motion by a group of subscribers seeking permission to file a second amended class-action complaint must be denied. That was the argument Dish made in suggestions in opposition (in Pacer) filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Missouri. It said claims about lack of credit provided for a late 2014/early 2015 blackout of Turner and Fox channels during stalled carriage negotiations aren't valid causes of action since charges of bad faith, breach of contract and willful and wanton conduct legally are circumstances that aren't present here. The company said plaintiffs' proposed new allegations of unconscionability and unjust enrichment also aren't legally applicable. In last month's petition (in Pacer) to file the amended complaint, plaintiffs said the 8th Circuit's October interlocutory appeal decision said Dish's not providing a credit isn't a breach of good faith and the plaintiffs didn't allege Dish eliminated the programming in bad faith. They wanted to amend their complaint to include allegations the satellite-TV provider interrupted the Turner and Fox channel access in bad faith and/or wantonly breached its form agreement. Counsel for plaintiffs didn't comment Friday.

A U.S. magistrate judge in St. Paul, Minnesota, postponed Friday for the fourth time the deadline for iQor Global Services, Best Buy's former smartphone refurbisher, to answer the retailer's November complaint that iQor botched the job of restoring phones to mint condition and charged Best Buy millions of dollars in contract fees for work it didn't perform. Magistrate Judge Steven Rau’s Friday order gave iQor until March 31 to respond to Best Buy allegations in a Nov. 29 complaint (in Pacer) that it’s guilty of six counts of breach of contract and one count of unjust enrichment. For five years through 2016, iQor was the service provider for Best Buy’s Rapid Exchange Program, which allowed Best Buy customers to return defective phones to Best Buy and exchange them for refurbished phones, said the complaint. “The Rapid Exchange Program was intended to provide Best Buy customers a convenient way to return defective phones and to minimize the time those customers were without a properly working device,” it said. But iQor didn’t properly refurbish “a large portion of the phones it received,” and in many cases had to refurbish the same phones “multiple times,” all the while charging Best Buy “a new service fee each time iQor tried (and failed) to adequately service the same phone,” it said. Best Buy estimates it "overpaid" iQor more than $17 million in service and warranty fees and credits, said the complaint. Representatives at iQor didn’t comment Friday.

LG, Vizio and four other companies were charged Tuesday in a series of federal complaints with infringing at least one of four Broadcom patents on video encoding and decoding, graphics processing and DVR functionality. The complaints (in Pacer) filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, also named Funai, MStar Semiconductor, MediaTek and Sigma Designs as defendants. The complaints against the TV brands and chipmakers all seek injunctions barring U.S. imports of the infringing products, plus damages “in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty for each asserted patent.” Broadcom also filed patent infringement complaints against the six companies at the International Trade Commission. LG spokesman John Taylor declined comment Wednesday. Representatives of the other five companies didn’t respond to emails.

Amazon turned over data collected through an Echo device owned by the defendant in an Arkansas murder case, confirmed Nathan Smith, Benton County, Arkansas, prosecuting attorney, in an email Tuesday. "I am pleased that we will have access to the data from the Defendant's Echo device since the Defendant consented to its release," he said, referring to James Bates, who was charged with the 2015 murder of Victor Collins (see 1701060025). "As with any case, our obligation is to investigate all of the available evidence, whether the evidence proves useful or not. Since this case is ongoing, I cannot comment on the specifics of the recording or whether it will be used in court," said Smith. The case drew the attention of privacy advocates, who say intelligent personal digital assistants may be involved in future court cases. Amazon didn't comment. Multiple news stories said the company handed over the data Friday.

Sony’s PlayStation Vue over-the-top service violates four Arris patents on video playback and content navigation, Arris alleged in a Thursday complaint. For example, Vue features a "My Shows" function that "can be used to capture and store a continuous feed of video into a digital video format," said the complaint (in Pacer) filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland. That's in direct violation of an October 2008 patent on methods for implementing seamless playback of "continuous media feeds" that Arris co-owns by assignment with Alcatel Lucent, the complaint said. Arris “has no adequate remedy at law for Sony’s acts of infringement,” it said. Arris “has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm” as a “direct and proximate result of Sony’s acts of infringement,” it said. Arris “will continue to be damaged and irreparably harmed” unless Sony’s violations “are enjoined by this Court,” it says. Sony representatives didn’t comment Friday.

Numerous LG mobile devices infringe three 4G LTE patents owned by Wi-LAN, the wireless technology and licensing company alleged in a Thursday complaint (in Pacer). LG’s products “include software and associated hardware that prioritize the transmission of data generated by various applications that run on these LG products, and in doing such prioritization utilize the claimed inventions of the patents asserted in this action,” said the complaint in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California. LG’s infringement gives it “an unfair advantage” over its competitors, “many of whom have chosen to do the right thing and license their use of Wi-LAN’s wireless technologies and patents,” it said. LG “knew or should have known” for months it was infringing the patents, it said. Wi-LAN since April “invited LG to renew its license” to Wi-LAN’s patent portfolio, but LG “declined to substantively engage in licensing negotiations with Wi-LAN or take a license,” it said. “As a matter of policy, LG doesn’t generally comment on such pending legal matters,” spokesman John Taylor emailed us.

The Copyright Alliance, DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) and Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) and video filtering company ClearPlay support various content companies in VidAngel's appeal of a U.S. District Court's preliminary injunction (see 1702100010). There are other routes to providing filtered video content than via violations of copyright owners' rights, the Copyright Alliance said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) filed Wednesday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It warned of VidAngel's arguments having a ripple effect across copyright law. The Copyright Alliance said VidAngel's argument that since it bought the video content, it can do what it wants to it "is a mutant form of the first sale doctrine in Section 109 of the Copyright Act." The AnyDVD and AnyDVD HD device drivers used by VidAngel to rip video content "are unlawful circumvention tools" banned by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 1201 and related anti-circumvention laws in other countries, DVD CCA/AACS LA said in an amicus brief (in Pacer) Wednesday. VidAngel's attempt to legitimize its offering also would legitimize such illegal circumvention software, they said. The groups said VidAngel hasn't sought from the Library of Congress a Section 1201 circumvention protection exemption, and the LoC has twice rejected exemptions for format-shifting, which VidAngel claims its service performs. ClearPlay, in its amicus brief Tuesday, said its own service doesn't circumvent access controls or make copies of copyrighted material or make unlawful public performance, thus demonstrating those steps can't credibly be claimed as necessary: "Whatever the legality of VidAngel’s process, it cannot be based on VidAngel’s unauthorized conduct being essential for video filtering." Counsel for VidAngel didn't comment Friday.

A judge's awarding legal fees and costs to BMG Rights Management should be seen as a message to ISPs about meeting their safe-harbor obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Rightscorp said in a statement Friday. In a memorandum opinion (in Pacer) Tuesday, on BMG, Round Hill Music and Cox Communications motions for costs and attorney fees, U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady of Alexandria, Virginia, granted BMG's motion for attorney fees but cut the request by 20 percent to $8.38 million and denied BMG's motion on nontaxable litigation expenses. The judge granted BMG's bill of costs but excluded some costs and cut it by 10 percent, and rejected Cox's motion for attorney fees and costs since it wasn't a prevailing party under the Copyright Act's Section 505. O'Grady said that "to continue to promote the vindication of individuals' copyrights ... BMG (and others like it) should be rewarded for facing up against willful infringers with deep pockets." Rightscorp CEO Christopher Sabec said there's no evidence repeat copyright infringers are being terminated by ISPs, putting them at risk of third-party liability, and that copyright holders hurt by ISPs' lack of safe-harbor implementation "can expect to have their costs covered." Rightscorp wasn't a party in the BMG litigation. Cox didn't comment.