A federal judge in Maine has stopped, for now, the imposition of a first-of-its-kind state law that would have required Comcast and any other cable operator that wanted to operate there to provide video channels a la carte.

But the decision, which came in the form of a temporary injunction, was something of a mixed bag.

Comcast and a laundry list of other content distributors and suppliers filed suit against the law, which, if it catches on in other states, would force them to offer channels and even programs individually on a nationwide basis.

Here is a look at the pros and cons of the decision from the cable industry’s perspective:

Pro: The decision means the judge thinks cable ops and programmers have a good chance of winning at trial.

Con: There will still be a trial on the merits of the law.

Pro: The nation’s largest cable operator won’t have to start the new year by unbundling its service and programming on a per-channel and even per-program basis.

Con: The judge dismissed cable’s argument that the law was pre-empted by the federal Cable Act, leaving open the question of whether the state could craft an a la carte law that did not run afoul of the First Amendment.

Pro: The judge granted the injunction because she said Comcast et al. had made a good case that the law violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on speaker-based regulations, since the law did not apply to satellite or other MVPDs.

Con: The judge said cable operators and programmers had not made the case, again at the preliminary stage, that the law violated an MSO’s right to make its own editorial decisions, an argument they have long made against the mustcarry/retrans regime.

Big Con: The judge suggested that cable pricing could be a reason for treating cable differently when it comes to unbundling: “The evidentiary record is weak at this point, but the record does contain evidence that cable pricing has greatly exceeded the pace of inflation over many years. This may provide a separate special characteristic that would support differential treatment of cable operators.”

Comcast paid $250 million to Sprint to settle a lawsuit stemming from claims by Sprint that the cable operator's digital voice service was infringing on  several Sprint patents. 

The amount was disclosed this week in a 10-Q filingspotted by thePhiladelphia Inquirer.

Sprint filed the original suit in December 2011 in a Kansas district court, alleging that Comcast’s Digital Voice/Xfinity Voice offering infringed on twelve Sprint patents covering various aspects of a telecommunications system.

The suit also targeted other MSOs, including Time Warner Cable (now part of Charter Communications), which lost the case in a judgement handed down earlier this year. Sprint’s suit against Cable One was dismissed by the court in November 2016, according to court documents.

RELATED: Sprint Sues Comcast, TWC, Cox And Cable One Over VoIP Patents

In the 10-Q, Comcast noted that in January 2017, the court favored Comcast on Sprint’s claims for infringement of two of the patents, with Sprint indicating in March that it would not proceed to trial on three of the patents.

However, a trial with respect to the four remaining patents, including the patent for which the court had already granted partial summary judgment to Sprint, was set to begin on October 23, 2017. 

Comcast and Sprint, the filing noted, entered into a settlement agreement on October 17 that dismissed all claims and resolves the disputes asserted in the remains of the case. Tied to the settlement, Comcast recorded a charge of $250 million in Q3 2017.

A lawsuit seeking class action status that targeted Netgear’s CM700 DOCSIS 3.0 modem has been dismissed.

The plaintiffs – Stewart Williams, Jeffrey Torres and Allan Hamilton, dismissed action with prejudice as to their individual claims, and without prejudice as the to claims of the putative classes, according to the closing document filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California  on August 9.

The dismissal with prejudice means that the court has made a final determination on the merits of the case and that the plaintiffs are now forbidden from filing another suit on the same grounds.

The original action, filed on April 14 by the firm of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe, alleged that the CM700, a D3.0 powered by an Intel Corp. Puma 6 chip, suffered from a “serious defect” that results in high spikes in network latency and degraded Internet connections.

RELATED:Netgear Hit With Class Action Lawsuit

At the time, Netgear said it had “full confidence in the CM700 cable modem.”

RELATED: Arris Faces Lawsuit Targeting DOCSIS 3.0 Modem

The law firm said then that it was also investigating whether other cable modems containing the Puma 6 chipset, including modems from Linksys, Cisco, Hitron, and Arris, also suffers from the same alleged network latency defect.

Avid said its patent infringement case against Harmonic is set to proceed to trial.

In a case that got underway in 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Avid said it is seeking a “multimillion-dollar damages” over allegations that Harmonic is infringing on two patents.

Avid said the case centers on Harmonic’s MediaGrid storage system and Avid’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,760,808 and 7,487,309 (Computer system and process for transferring multiple high bandwidth streams of data between multiple storage units and multiple applications in a scalable and reliable manner), and the Harmonic’s Spectrum media server system and Avid’s U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 (Decompression system for compressed video data for providing uninterrupted decompressed video data output).

Following the latest rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Avid said it plans to proceed to trial against Harmonic.

Avid said its case of infringement against Harmonic’s Spectrum products is scheduled for trial in November 2017, and noted that the court ordered a new trial in the MediaGrid case in 2016.

Harmonic sought to have the USPTO cancel the patent claims in Avid’s ‘808 and ‘309 Patents, but on May 12, 2017, the USPTO upheld the claims of Avid’s 309 Patent, but found the claims of the ‘808 Patent unpatentable (Avid plans to appeal that decision).  With the ‘309 Patent confirmed as patentable, Avid said its infringement case against Harmonic and its MediaGrid system is expected to proceed to the new trial ordered by the Federal Circuit.

“Based on expert testimony, Avid expects its claim against Harmonic could result in up to $35 million in damages through 2013,” Avid said.

Harmonic, which outlined details of Avid’s legal actions in May via this 8-K filing, has been asked for further comment.

Update:Harmonic said it is not commenting about the case beyond what's stated in its SEC filings. 

Roku said a Federal court in Mexico has lifted an earlier Mexico City court order that had been blocking the sale of Roku streaming devices in the country temporarily.

“Roku is pleased with today’s court decision, which paves the way for sales of Roku devices to resume in Mexico,” Steve Kay, Roku’s general counsel, said in a statement

RELATED: Court Blocks Roku Device Sales in Mexico Over Privacy Worries: Reports

The Federal court’s decision provisionally suspends the earlier ban. According to Bloomberg, retailers Liverpool and Palacio de Hierro were originally ordered to stop selling Roku products because of “legal issues,” noting that Cablevision, a Mexican cable operator run by Grupo Televisa, has obtained the initial order over concerns that Roku devices could be hacked to access subscription OTT services without payment.

Roku said it is now working with its local distributor and retailers in Mexico to restore the availability of Roku streaming devices in retail. In the meantime, the Roku platform continues to serve current customers across Mexico, the company added.

Cablevision, a Mexican cable operator run by Grupo Televisa, has obtained a court order that temporarily blocks the sale of Roku devices over concerns that they can be hacked to view unauthorized content, Bloomberg reported, citing a story that first appeared in Reforma.

Bloomberg said salespeople at retailers Liverpool and Palacio de Hierro told the publication that they were ordered to stop selling Roku products because of “legal issues.” The report said hackers in Mexico are selling compromised Roku devices that allow users to access subscription OTT services without payment.

“Our platform rules prohibit the distribution of content that violates copyrights,” a Roku official told Bloomberg. “We are working diligently with our distributor in Mexico to restore availability of Roku players in retail. Roku itself was not sued by Cablevision.”

Roku has been asked for further comment.

Update: Roku said a federal court in Mexico has lifted the ban.

To be or not to be defined as an MVPD, that is the question.

A federal appeals court Friday heard argument in the long-running court battle between TV station content providers and FilmOn and, according to an attorney at the lively and lengthy oral argument, both sides had their adherents.

FilmOn says it is the online equivalent of cable system/MVPD and should be eligible for a blanket compulsory copyright license to stream TV content. Fox and the other Big Four TV networks—with the support of the National Association of Broadcasters—have said FilmOn is not entitled to the license and cannot stream TV content without individually negotiating for the rights.

Hearing the case, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn.TV Networks Inc., was a three-judge panel of the court comprising Chief Judge Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee for the Antonin Scalia Supreme Court seat), and Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Patricia Ann Millett.

According to Cory Andrews, senior litigation counsel with the Washington Legal Foundation who was at the argument (WLF filed an amicus brief supporting Fox et al.), the argument went long--almost two hours--and included some lively questioning.

He said that it appeared from that questioning that Millett was more in line with FilmOn, Garland with broadcasters, and Kavanaugh could be the swing vote assuming there is one.

He said Kavanaugh asked tough questions of both sides and appeared to be grappling with whether it is the proper role of the court to create a new over-the-top cable system, rather than Congress.

Garland, said Andrews, seemed to be the most likely to view the statute as ambiguous, and because it is ambiguous, that it made sense to defer to the Copyright Office interpretation that a cable system is inherently local.

He said Millet did not appear to see the same ambiguity in the statute language as describing MVPDs as wires and cables or other communications means and that the Internet would seem to qualify as wires and cables and was arguably the preeminent communications tool, so that if the statute is viewed as being drafted with enough

flexibility to account for evolving technology, over-the-top video would seem fit under that definition.

All that is with the caveat that it is difficult to gauge a judge's decision from questioning, since they can play devil's advocate in order to probe and test an argument they might actually agree with.

The lawyer for broadcasters, Neal Katyal from Hogan Lovells, argued that what was at stake was property rights, and that the Copyright Act extends broad protections for copyright holders and provides as very narrow exceptions, including the blanket (compulsory) license.

FilmOn is challenging a lower court decision that deferred to the Copyright Office’s advisory that internet-based retransmission services are not eligible for the license available to cable systems.

On the other coast, FilmOn and Fox et al. are awaiting a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a decision by a different lower court judge that FilmOn is eligible for a compulsory license, which would allow FilmOn X (formerly Aereokiller) to deliver TV-station programming from the major networks at a government-set rate, rather than having to negotiate for it individually.

How those decisions are ultimately ruled on in those federal appeals courts  could determine whether the Supreme Court gets involved. IF the federal circuits split, one supporting the license the other not, the Supremes would be more likely to take the case if it is appealed there.

The High Court has already ruled in a similar case, ABC v. Aereo that Internet transmissions are public performances and require a copyrightholder's permission, rather than being covered by a blanket license.

The Copyright Office has previously, if tentatively, held that over-the-top services are not subject to the blanket license, but said the FCC could change that if it defined them as MVPDs. Then FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed doing just that, including citing FilmOn as one of the competitive video services such a move would help foster, but he got pushback, including from some in both parties on the Hill, and that definitional initiative was tabled.

An Illinois U.S. District Court Judge has refused to dismiss most of spot cable ad sales company Viamedia's lawsuit against Comcast and its Comcast Spotlight ad sales arm.

Comcast had moved to dismiss the Viamedia complaint, which alleged that Comcast has unlawfully impeded Viamedia and other spot cable ad sales companies' ability to compete with Spotlight. Specifically, Viamedia says Comcast has abused its controlling stake in NCC and a regional cable interconnect spot sales cooperative to thwart competition and force spot cable advertisers to use Spotlight instead of Viamedia or others.

The complaint is focused on Chicago and Detroit, where Comcast controls regional cable ad sales, says the court.

In the decision upholding Comcast's request in part, Judge Amy St. Eve said Viamedia "has plausibly alleged that Defendants engaged in conduct that lowered the quality of service available in the spot cable advertising representation market, and that this conduct resulted in harm to Viamedia." She said those allegations "sufficiently plead antitrust injury."

As to Viamedia's claim of illegal tying in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, St. Eve said that while Comcast can "attempt" to show why their conduct does not violate the Act, "Viamedia’s allegations of a tying arrangement sufficiently state a claim at this stage...Viamedia has plausibly alleged distinct markets for spot cable advertising representation services and Interconnect services," a necessary predicate for an illegal tying claim.

As to Viamedia's claim of exclusive dealing, St. Eve said "at this juncture" Comcast's argument did not persuade the court to dismiss the claim. "[A]lthough an exclusive dealing arrangement may be procompetitive when certain advertising representation firms engage in it," the judge wrote, "the complaint alleges that Defendants’ exclusive dealing and unique position in the spot cable advertising business caused harm to competition." Comcast will have to demonstrate to the court why that was not the case.

Viamedia's claim of "refusal to deal" was the one part of Comcast's request to dismiss that the judge agreed to. She cited Supreme Court precedent that "as a general matter, the Sherman Act ‘does not restrict the long recognized right of [a] trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal...Viamedia has not alleged or explained how Defendants’ refusal to deal with it—separate from Defendants’ other conduct like conditioning MVPDs’ access to Interconnects on accepting Comcast Spotlight’s services even for advertising sales that do not involve an Interconnect—has no rational procompetitive purpose." 

While President Obama urged the FCC to push back on laws limiting municipal broadband buildouts, the Department of Justice did not have his back when it came to challenges by Tennessee and North Carolina to the FCC's decision earlier this year to do just that by preempting state laws limiting muni buildouts.

The antitrust division at DOJ weighed in at the Sixth Circuit on the challenge Friday (Nov. 6) and it was hardly a ringing endorsement. "Respondent United States of America takes no position in these cases," said DOJ attorney Robert B. Nicholson in a court filing Friday (Nov. 6).

In a 3-2, party-line vote (supported by its Democratic majority), the FCC on Feb. 26 pre-empted state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that limited cities’ ability to get into the broadband business. The agency cited its authority under Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to ensure that advanced telecom services are deployed in a reasonable and timely manner.

The order pre-empts geographic limitations on the expansion of municipal broadband systems in Chattanooga, Tenn., and Wilson, N.C., though it does not compel any action in either case. The decision does not affect laws in other states, but signals how the FCC might act on similar petitions.

The FCC said it can't pre-empt laws preventing municipalities from building broadband networks, but can preempt ones that limit it where it has already been authorized.

In a speech in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Feb. 26, where a community broadband network, with the help of government funding, delivers 1 gigabit speed service at about the same price as the cable bundle, President Obama told a crowd of sometimes cheering Iowans that there was not enough competition to ISPs that continued to "jack up" 

rates, and that the government should try to encourage municipal competitors to fill that breach.

(http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/president-fcc-should-push-ba...)

He said in many places big companies are "doing everything they can to keep out new competitors" and "stamp out" competition. "Enough is enough," he said, and called on the FCC to do whatever it could to push back on those laws.

But there had been signs that was not the last word from the Administration. In a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler after that speech, the head of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, the President's chief telecom adviser, said that muni broadband is not always, or even "typically," the best way to meet a community's broadband needs, "particularly where existing service providers are willing and able to meet a communities evolving needs."

"The Department of Justice's curt statement advising the court that it takes no position in the appeal of the FCC's preemption of state laws restricting local government broadband networks is very curious," said Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, who is no fan of the FCC's preemption action. "As someone who served as FCC associate general counsel, I can tell you this is a very rare occurrence. And it is especially curious in this case because President Obama urged the FCC to do exactly what FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler then did. We don't know for sure, but my best guess is that the DOJ, quite rightly, is concerned about the lawfulness of the FCC's preemption action. If so, the concern is justified."

Verizon Communications said the U.S. District Court in Islip, New York, issued a temporary restraining order this week that orders Cablevision Systems to temporarily pull certain “anti-FiOS advertising” while also affirming Verizon’s WiFi-related speed claims. 

Cablevision followed with a statement noting that the judge did not rule that the MSO must pull all anti-FiOS ads, but that the temporary injunction is limited to ads asserting that Verizon is a “liar,” or tells “lies.”

"The law, like our economic system, encourages spirited competition," the judge said, according to a transcript. "But when a competitor exceeds the bounds of decency by falsely impugning the integrity of a competitor, it runs afoul of the law. Such extraordinary conduct warrants the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order.”

Verizon said the temporary restraining order, issued Monday (August 10) and released Tuesday (August 11) afternoon, ties into Cablevision ads that have targeted elements related to telco’s fiber-optic network, FiOS speeds, and the capabilities of its DVR products.  Verizon said the same court on Friday (August 7) also sustained the telco’s “Fastest Available WiFi claim,” which was at the center of a lawsuit that Cablevision filed against Verizon in January in the federal court for the Eastern district of New York. Cablevision, which recently launched a WiFi-only phone service called Freewheel, argued that Verizon’s claims were false, deceptive and designed to mislead consumers, and that Verizon’s in-home routers were not faster than Cablevision’s Optimum Smart Routers.

In June, Cablevision, the MSO with the most competitive exposure to Verizon FiOS, dropped the WiFi lawsuit so it could combine it with the case filed in the Islip court involving the TV ads that were targeting FiOS, according to Reuters. At the time, the MSO told Reuters that it was "merely in the process of being transferred to the same court that is already hearing our prior false advertising lawsuit against Verizon.”

Cablevision said Tuesday that the judge ruled that it could continue to “advertise that the Optimum WiFi network is a better data network than Verizon’s service, and that the Optimum WiFi network offers a faster experience than cellular.” 

Cablevision also said in a statement that it will keep up the fight, noting it “will challenge Verizon’s claims, not only through the legal system but also in the court of public opinion.”

Verizon, meanwhile, cheered the decision. “Cablevision’s obfuscation of the truth is nothing but a campaign to keep accurate and factual information away from consumers,” Susan Retta, Verizon’s VP of consumer marketing, said in a statement. 

Interactive program guide vendor and metadata supplier Rovi Corp. said it was victorious in an infringement proceeding in Italy initiated by Card Mania and Italvideo.

Those two CE companies had alleged that the Italian portions of two European Rovi patents (EP 0969662 and EP 1377049) are invalid and not infringed, while Rovi counterclaimed the exact opposite.

Rovi said the Court of Turin in Italy issued its decision in May that Rovi is entitled to a total combined judgment of approximately $1 million, noting that the court had previously found the asserted patents valid and infringed by Card Mania and Italvideo.

“We’re pleased that the Italian Court upheld these two patents, found them infringed and awarded Rovi a substantial damages award, demonstrating the strength, relevance and value of Rovi’s patents,” said Samir Armaly, executive vice president of intellectual property and licensing, Rovi, in a statement. “These are only two patents in our larger portfolio. Rovi has a well-established licensing program with many of the consumer electronics companies in Italy and throughout Europe. We look forward to growing our licensing program in this market.”

In the U.S., Rovi is still in a battle with Netflix in a case at the Northern District Court in Oakland that’s being heard after the U.S. International Trade Commission, in November 2013, affirmed an earlier ruling that Netflix’s streaming software did not infringe on Rovi patents tied to IPG technology.