Synaptics filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission requesting a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation on touch screen controllers imported by Blu Products and Goodix. Synaptics said April 21 that Goodix is manufacturing and importing infringing touch-screen controllers, including Goodix’s GT915 controller. The allegedly infringing touch-screen controllers are also being incorporated into Blu Products smartphones, such as the BLU Studio 5.0C HD, alleged Synaptics. It asked the ITC to issue limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders prohibiting import and sale of infringing merchandise by Blu Products and Goodix. Comments are due to the ITC May 5. Blu had no comment. Goodix said it believes Synaptic's allegations "are without merit, and it will vigorously defend itself against Synaptics’ allegations, while continuing to fully service and support its customers." Goodix "respects intellectual property rights and the rights of inventors to protect their innovations, in the same manner that Goodix expects others to respect its own intellectual property rights," said the company in a Thursday news release.

The U.S. Copyright Office is seeking comment on copyright protections for visual works, particularly how the Copyright Act treats the registration, monetization and enforcement of copyrights on photos and illustrations. The Copyright Office said in Friday’s Federal Register that it wants to get input on the current state of the market for photos and illustrations and roadblocks to enforcing copyrights on those works. Comments on these copyright issues are likely to lead to more specific comment inquiries, the Copyright Office said. Comments are due July 23 and reply comments are due Aug. 24.

Defendant iHeartMedia uses Impulse Radio’s data services technology without a license and so has infringed an Impulse patent describing a “system and method for generating multimedia accompaniments to broadcast data,” Impulse alleged in an April 8 complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The complaint also named iBiquity Digital as a co-defendant, alleging the HD Radio licensor “brazenly represents to broadcasters that it has a license to Impulse’s patented and proprietary technology and the right to sublicense that technology to broadcasters, including iHeartMedia,” as part of its HD Radio “software and services,” when in fact "no such license or right to sublicense exists.” The U.S. patent at issue in the complaint (7,908,172) was granted in March 2011, assigned to Impulse and listed David Corts, Lee Hunter, Paul Signorelli, Terrance Snyder and Bryce Wells as inventors. The data services technology pioneered by Impulse “can take a variety of forms,” including providing album art as well as artist and title information on a radio’s front panel, the complaint said. The technology also enables an “interactive listening experience,” such as the ability to buy music at the “touch of a button” by embedding the radio broadcast with data from a music-selling service, it said. “These innovations enable HD Radio broadcasters to offer a more dynamic and marketable multi-media radio experience.” Impulse and iBiquity share a long cooperative history, even embarking together in September 2002 on an “Extreme Digital Road Show” tour across the U.S. to drum up support for HD Radio, the complaint said. Over the years, the two companies even signed a series of standards agreements, it said. The agreements “explicitly prohibited” iBiquity from using the Impulse technology without Impulse’s “express written consent,” it said. Ibiquity spokesman Joe D'Angelo emailed us Wednesday to decline to comment, citing company policy not to discuss "pending litigation." Representatives of iHeartMedia didn’t respond to queries.

Most so-called patent trolls “don’t produce anything, they just shake down anyone who does,” comedian John Oliver said in an 11-minute segment Sunday on his HBO show Last Week Tonight that poked satirical fun at the patent abuse problem. “So calling them trolls is a little misleading. At least trolls actually do something. They control bridge access for goats and ask people fun riddles. Patent trolls just threaten to sue the living shit out of people, and believe me, those lawsuits add up.” Patent trolls have manipulated the system down "to such a science," Oliver said. For example, in seeking lucrative patent infringement settlements, patent trolls “work out the maximum amount of money you’d be willing to pay, rather than go to court and negotiate for that,” he said. “They pick a number the same way airlines pick a cabin temperature -- perfectly calibrated to make you miserable, but not so much that you’d actually do anything about it.” Oliver also took aim at the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, which patent reform advocates have criticized as notoriously friendly to frivolous patent lawsuits. “A quarter of all patent cases are filed in Marshall, Texas,” he said. “And believe me, it is not because the people there are inventing like a meth head in a Home Depot aisle.” Saying trial lawyer lobbyists killed the last congressional attempt at patent reform, Oliver said: “You cannot let trial lawyers decide whether there should be more baseless lawsuits. That’s the equivalent of trusting raccoons to make laws about garbage-can placements.”

Correction: NAB said that as of Wednesday the Local Radio Freedom Act (House Concurrent Resolution-17/Senate Concurrent Resolution-4) had 154 co-sponsors in the House (see 1504160050).

MusicFIRST heralded recent endorsements of the Fair Play Fair Pay Act (HR-1733) from the AFL-CIO, Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) as proof that the bill has bipartisan support in Congress. Terrestrial and digital broadcasters, including NAB, are strongly opposing the bill (see 1504100044). The Free State Foundation endorsed HR-1733 Wednesday, with Senior Fellow Seth Cooper saying in a blog post that Congress should “give this legislation a prompt fair hearing.” The AFL-CIO endorsed the bill shortly after its introduction Monday, saying in a blog post that “a performance right is not a tax.” CFIF said in a blog post that HR-1733 “offers a corrective to years of unfairness in the industry, and it’s something that conservatives, libertarians and anyone who values property rights should support.” MusicFIRST Executive Director Ted Kalo said in a news release that “few issues have the power to unite principled observers from such different viewpoints as the twin pillars of economic fairness and free competition that lie at the core of this bill.”

Free State Foundation President Randolph May urged Congress to hold hearings exploring ways to improve the U.S. Copyright Office, noting the March 31 GAO report on the Library of Congress's IT program, which GAO said needed a “clear direction.” The GAO also said the Library needed to “expeditiously” hire a chief information officer. Copyright stakeholders have used the Library's IT woes as a reason for removing the Copyright Office from its purview (see 1503310046). “The reality is that there appears to be much room for improvement in the functioning of the Copyright Office, especially with respect to implementing digital technologies,” May said in a Tuesday blog post. “In today's digital environment, there is no reason why the office's registration and recording functions -- the guts of a working copyright system -- should not employ up-to-date digital technologies in order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. It may also be the case that the CO needs more personnel and funds in order to do its job.” Hearings on the Copyright Office should also focus on personnel resources, budget requirements and the overall location of the Copyright Office within the federal government, May said.

House Judiciary IP Subcommittee ranking member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said Monday that they were filing the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, as expected (see 1504100044). The bill would require most terrestrial radio stations to begin paying performance royalties and would require digital broadcasters to begin paying royalties for pre-1972 sound recordings. The bill would also require satellite broadcasters to pay royalties at market rates. “The current system is antiquated and broken,” Nadler said during a news conference in New York to announce the bill. “It pits technologies against each other and allows certain services to get away with paying little or even nothing to artists.” The bill contains carve-outs for college radio stations and radio stations that report revenue of less than $1 million per year. Stations with less than $1 million annual revenue would pay a maximum of $500 per year in royalties, while college radio stations would pay a maximum of $100. The carve-outs are meant to prevent major broadcasting companies from using small radio stations as a reason for members of Congress to vote against the bill. MusicFIRST Executive Director Ted Kalo praised the bill’s introduction, saying in a statement that “fair market value for music will encourage creativity by music creators.” The bill will also “promote innovation among music services,” he said. The NAB and the Digital Media Association said Friday that they would oppose the bill.

A Dutch-based owner of several streaming media patents slapped nine prominent smartphone and tablet brands with separate, but nearly identical patent infringement complaints Thursday, seeking in all the cases jury trials, compensatory and punitive damages, and permanent injunctions against the infringing products. Apple, Dell, HTC, Huawei, LG, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Samsung and ZTE are guilty of infringing U.S. patent 8,090,862, published in January 2012, said the owner, Nonend Inventions, of Bilthoven, the Netherlands, in each of the complaints. It also alleged LG has infringed a second patent, U.S. 7,590,752, published in September 2009. Both patents were assigned to Nonend and list Marc van Oldenborgh and Marijn Gnirrep as inventors. The 2012 patent describes systems and methods “for streaming content over a network that enables communication between a first consumer node, a second consumer node, and a production node.” The 2009 patent describes the “apparatus” for “playing media content on a media player while streaming the retrieved parts of the media content to other devices.” Representatives of the companies named as defendants didn’t comment. All the complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas. It’s part of the Eastern District of Texas that CEA President Gary Shapiro recently blasted as a “notoriously” friendly haven for frivolous patent infringement suits (see 1502270013). For LG, it’s the second patent infringement complaint filed against the company within a week in the same courthouse (see 1504060053).

Six weeks after 145 U.S. universities wrote Congress expressing opposition to the Innovation Act (HR-9) as a measure that goes “well beyond what is needed” to address patent abuse (see 1502250046), CEA wrote those universities urging them to reconsider. CEA views the bill as “fair, common-sense legislation that would curb abusive patent litigation by patent trolls, while protecting inventors, innovative companies, research institutions and licensors such as universities,” it said Wednesday in a statement. “It is disappointing to see universities reject common-sense reform, especially since many universities are licensing publicly funded patents,” said CEA President Gary Shapiro. Contrary to the universities’ concerns, the bill “would create a clear standard for shifting fees in patent cases, which isn’t a significant departure from the fee shifting provision that has existed in U.S. patent law since 1946,” Shapiro said. Litigation fees would be shifted in patent cases only if “the position and conduct of the non-prevailing party or parties” weren't “reasonably justified in law and fact,” he said. It’s also unlikely that any university “would ever be in a position to be affected by the joinder requirements in the Innovation Act,” Shapiro said, addressing another of the schools’ concerns. “This provision will apply only to cases brought by entities that exist for the sole purpose of litigating a patent.”