Supreme Court News - Rhode Island - onPolitix

Court: 'pay to delay' generic drugs can be illegal

2013-06-17T16:15:01Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that deals between pharmaceutical corporations and their generic drug competitors, which government officials say keep cheaper forms of medicine off the market, can be sometimes be illegal and therefore challenged in court.

The justices voted 5-3 to allow the government to inspect and challenge what it calls "pay-for-delay" deals or "reverse settlements."

"This court's precedents make clear that patent-related settlement agreements can sometimes violate anti-trust law," said Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the court's opinion.

Reverse settlements arise when generic companies file a challenge at the Food and Drug Administration to the patents that give brand-name drugs a 20-year monopoly. The generic drugmakers aim to prove the patent is flawed or otherwise invalid, so they can launch a generic version well before the patent ends.

Brand-name drugmakers then usually sue the generic companies, which sets up what could be years of expensive litigation. When the two sides aren't certain who will win, they often reach a compromise deal that allows the generic company to sell its cheaper copycat drug in a few years — but years before the drug's patent would expire. Often, that settlement comes with a sizable payment from the brand-name company to the generic drugmaker.

Drugmakers say the settlements protect their interests but also benefit consumers by bringing inexpensive copycat medicines to market years earlier than they would arrive in any case generic drugmakers took to trial and lost. But federal officials counter that such deals add billions to the drug bills of American patients and taxpayers, compared with what would happen if the generic companies won the lawsuits and could begin marketing right away.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the dissent for himself and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said ordinarily the high court would say that any deal that would end costly and time-consuming litigation would be thought of as a good thing.

"The majority's rule will discourage settlement of patent litigation," Roberts said. "Simply put, there would be no incentive to settle if, immediately after setting, the parties would have to litigate the same issue — the question of patent validity — as part of a defense against an antitrust suit."

The Justice Department asked the court to rule that all reverse settlements were illegal, but Breyer said that was going too far. The deals' "complexities lead us to conclude that the FTC must prove its case," he said.

Paul Bisaro, president and CEO of Actavis, said he was glad the court did not rule "settlement agreements are presumptively unlawful."

"Rather, the court has established that the 'rule of reason' be applied, and left it to the lower courts to determine if the benefits of the settlement outweigh harm to consumers," Bisaro said. "We believe this decision continues to provide for a lawful and legitimate pathway for resolving patent challenge litigation in a manner that is pro-competitive and beneficial to American consumers."

Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case.

The case is Federal Trade Commission vs. Actavis, Inc., 12-416.

___

Follow Jesse J. Holland on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland

New anti-demonstration rule at Supreme Court

2013-06-13T20:00:26Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has come up with a new regulation banning demonstrations on its grounds, two days after a broader anti-demonstration law was declared unconstitutional.

The regulation bans activities on the court's grounds or building such as picketing, speech-making, marching, vigils or religious services "that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers."

It says that "casual use by visitors or tourists" that isn't likely to attract a crowd is not banned. That may be a way of addressing the concern posed by a federal judge who threw out the law barring processions and expressive banners on the court's grounds.

In her ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said that law was so broad it could criminalize preschool students parading on their first field trip to the high court. She also wrote that the marshal of the Supreme Court "has the authority to prescribe necessary regulations to govern the plaza," which is what the marshal did Thursday.

Howell was ruling in a challenge brought by Harold Hodge Jr., who was arrested on the Supreme Court plaza in January 2011 while wearing a sign that criticized police treatment of blacks and Hispanics.

He was given a citation for violating a law that makes it a crime to "parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages," or to display a "flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement," at the high court's building or grounds.

The new regulation can be found on the Supreme Court website, on the page marked, "Building Regulations," with a note that they have been "prescribed by the Marshal and approved by the Chief Justice of the United States."

John Whitehead, the president of the Rutherford Institute, which successfully challenged the law on Hodge's behalf, called the new regulation "repugnant" to the Constitution.

"It almost to me seems to be directed at people like Harold Hodge, if you communicate a message," Whitehead said. "If you believe in free speech, the First Amendment's really clear: You have a right to petition your government peacefully to redress grievances."

Whitehead said there are solutions short of what the court came up with Thursday, such as creating a "free speech zone" on the plaza.

"Doing away with all of it — I don't understand what they're doing," he said. "Harold Hodge still can't go out there with his sign."

"We're going to go after it," Whitehead added. "We're going to do what we can to challenge it. We're researching it right now." Hodge has said he plans to return to the plaza and picket, hand out leaflets, sing, chant and make speeches. If he were to be arrested again, Whitehead said, his group would fight it.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court declined comment.

___

Online:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/buildingregulations.aspx

___

Follow Fred Frommer on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffrommer

DC circuit reviewing judge's alleged misconduct

2013-06-13T17:25:17Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — A council of federal judges in Washington will look into a misconduct complaint against a conservative judge who is alleged to have made racially discriminatory comments.

Judge Edith Jones of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allegedly said at speech in February that certain "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime," and are "prone to commit acts of violence" and be involved in more violent and "heinous" crimes than people of other ethnicities.

On Wednesday, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Judge John Roberts assigned the complaint to the District of Columbia Circuit after the 5th Circuit asked that it be transferred. The coalition of civil rights organizations that filed the complaint had requested that it be transferred out of the 5th Circuit.

A judicial council of the D.C. circuit will look into the complaint and can take several actions, ranging from a public reprimand to referring the case to the national Judicial Conference of the United States, if the council believes the conduct is grounds for impeachment. Under such a referral, the conference would decide whether to recommend impeachment to Congress.

The council will be made up of the chief judge of the circuit, Merrick Garland, and an equal number of appeals court and district court judges. The council can hire outside counsel as part of its investigation. Jones can also hire a lawyer.

At issue are statements Jones made in a speech at the University of Pennsylvania law school on Feb. 20. Her comments were not recorded, but five students and one attorney who were there signed affidavits about what was said. According to the complaint, Jones said that when courtroom defendants claim innocence or allege police or prosecutorial racism, innocence, arbitrariness, and violations of international law, those are just "red herrings" used by death penalty opponents. She also said defendants' claims of mental retardation in death-penalty cases disgust her, the complaint alleged.

The complaint alleges that Jones said, "a killer is only likely to make peace with God and the victim's family in that moment when the killer faces imminent execution, recognizing that he or she is about to face God's judgment."

Two years ago, Jones was in a 2-1 majority that determined that a defendant was not mentally impaired and was therefore eligible for execution. On Wednesday night, the defendant, Elroy Chester, was executed in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch appeal from his attorney, who argued that Jones subsequently displayed bias against Chester when she discussed his case during the February speech.

Jones, a native of Philadelphia, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, and was the appeals court's chief judge for seven years, until October 2012. Prior to her appointment, she was a lawyer in private practice in Houston.

___

Follow Fred Frommer on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffrommer

Court says human genes cannot be patented

2013-06-13T17:00:21Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that companies cannot patent parts of naturally-occurring human genes, a decision with the potential to profoundly affect the emerging and lucrative medical and biotechnology industries.

The high court's unanimous judgment reverses three decades of patent awards by government officials. It throws out patents held by Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics Inc. on an increasingly popular breast cancer test brought into the public eye recently by actress Angelina Jolie's revelation that she had a double mastectomy because of one of the genes involved in this case.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the court's decision, said that Myriad's assertion — that the DNA it isolated from the body for its proprietary breast and ovarian cancer tests were patentable — had to be dismissed because it violates patent rules. The court has said that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.

"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," Thomas said.

However, the court gave Myriad a partial victory, ruling that while naturally-occurring DNA was not patentable, synthetically-created DNA could be patented. The court said that synthetically created DNA, known as cDNA, can be patented "because it is not naturally occurring," Thomas said.

Patents are the legal protection that gives inventors the right to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years, but opponents of Myriad Genetics Inc.'s patents on the two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer say such protection should not be given to something that can be found inside the human body.

The company has used its patent to come up with its BRACAnalysis test, which looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Women with a faulty gene have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer and also have a higher risk of ovarian cancer.

Jolie revealed last month that her mother died of ovarian cancer and that her maternal grandmother also had the disease. She said she carries a defective BRCA1 gene that puts her at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers, and her doctor said that the test that turned up the faulty gene link led Jolie to have both of her healthy breasts removed to try to avoid the same fate.

The court's ruling on synthetic DNA leaves the door open for future genetic patent work for companies like Myriad, lawyers said.

Thomas noted there are still ways for Myriad to make money off its discovery. "Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method patent," he said. And he noted that the case before the court did not include patents on the application of knowledge about the two genes.

Most biotech companies have already moved on from trying to patent isolated DNA, instead looking at synthetic options and other ways of protecting their multimillion-dollar investments, said Matthew McFarlane of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

"On a day-in and day-out basis, I don't see this changing that part of the industry," McFarlane said. "Isolated DNA itself is not something that companies seek to protect anymore."

Myriad's stock price jumped 10 percent after the ruling and was above $36 a share in early afternoon trading.

For its part, Myriad focused on what the ruling left intact.

"We believe the court appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA and underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward," said Peter D. Meldrum, Myriad's president and CEO. "More than 250,000 patients rely upon our BRACAnalysis test annually, and we remain focused on saving and improving peoples' lives and lowering overall healthcare costs."

Myriad sells the only BRCA gene test. Opponents of its patents say the company can use the patents to keep other researchers from working with the BRCA gene to develop other tests.

"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."

Companies have billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line in this case. Their advocates argue that without the ability to recoup their investment through the profits that patents bring, breakthrough scientific discoveries to combat all kinds of medical maladies wouldn't happen.

But "genes and the information they encode area not patent eligible ... simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," Thomas said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said "the portion of the DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state."

The case is 12-398, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

___

Follow Jesse J. Holland on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland .

Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees

2013-06-03T14:20:54Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court says police can legally take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in hopes of using it to solve old cases.

The justices, on a 5-4 vote, say taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven, does not violate the Constitution.

At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court said it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge. That court said King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Supreme Court, called DNA cheek swabs "a legitimate police booking procedure" like fingerprinting or photographing.

Senate confirms Obama nominee to key appeals court

2013-05-23T19:05:02Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — After five years of trying, President Barack Obama has placed his first nominee on a key appeals court in Washington.

The Senate voted unanimously on Thursday to confirm Sri Srinivasan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court is considered the most important in the country after the Supreme Court. The Senate voted 97-0 in favor of his nomination.

Srinivasan is currently the principal deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General. He has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations and served as a law clerk to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In debate on Srinivasan's nomination, Democrats and Republicans universally praised his legal qualifications, in many cases using similar adjectives. Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and Chris Coons, D-Del., both praised Srinivasan's temperament.

"I can say without question, he has the background the skills and perhaps most importantly the temperament to serve as a circuit court judge," Coons said.

Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, of Kansas, paid tribute to Srinivasan's Midwestern roots. He noted that Srinivasan grew up in Lawrence, Kan., once playing as a guard in a high-school lineup that included Kansas Jayhawk legend and NBA star Danny Manning.

"Sri is a fellow Kansan and one of our state's most accomplished legal minds," Moran said.

Srinivasan will join the bench of a court with influence that stems from its frequent hearing of cases involving federal laws and regulations. The court has also served as a supply line to the Supreme Court -- four of the current high court's justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, served on the appeals court.

In addition to being Obama's first nominee to the court, Srinivasan is the first judge to be seated to the court in seven years since Roberts left the court to go to the Supreme Court. Srinivasan was first nominated nearly one year ago.

Srinivasan's unanimous, bipartisan support was a stark contrast to Obama's previous nominee for the District of Columbia Circuit, Caitlin Halligan. A New York lawyer, Halligan withdrew her nomination after it was blocked by Republicans who said she was too liberal and didn't strictly interpret the Constitution.

Birth control coverage up for federal appeal

2013-05-23T14:45:01Z

DENVER (AP) — In the most prominent challenge of its kind, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is asking a federal appeals court Thursday for an exemption from part of the federal health care law that requires it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill.

The Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain argues that businesses — not just the currently exempted religious groups — should be allowed to seek exception from that part of the health law if it violates their religious beliefs.

"They ought to be able — just like a church, just like a charity — to have the right to opt out of a provision that infringes on their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, who will argue before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Green family, the founders of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc.

The Greens contend that emergency contraception is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

Lower courts have rejected Hobby Lobby's claim, saying that for-profit businesses aren't covered by an exemption added to the law for religious organizations. That exemption applies to churches themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.

In a decision issued late last year, a federal judge concluded simply, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

But U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton in Oklahoma City also wrote that "the court is not unsympathetic" to Hobby Lobby's dilemma and that the question of compelling employer health coverage for certain procedures "involves largely uncharted waters."

Other businesses in multiple states are challenging the contraception mandate, too. Hobby Lobby is the most prominent company making the claim, and it is the first to be heard by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Justice Department will argue for the government that the contraception mandate should stay.

The 10th Circuit opted to hear the case before all nine judges, not the typical three-judge panel, indicating the case's importance.

In December, the 10th Circuit denied Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction to prevent it being subject to fines while its argument was on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court also denied an injunction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that it was not "indisputably clear" that Hobby Lobby needed immediate protection.

In response, the company restructured its health insurance, Duncan said. But Hobby Lobby, which is self-insured, will face fines by July 1 if it does not provide the coverage, he said.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance.

The Hobby Lobby case has attracted broad interest from health groups and religious groups. A panel including reproductive rights organizations and the American Public Health Association banded together last year to ask the court to reject Hobby Lobby's claim. The groups argued it would be dangerous precedent to allow for-profit private businesses to use religious beliefs to deny coverage.

In a brief to the court filed last year, the health groups argued that allowing businesses not to cover some contraceptives would be like allowing businesses to tell employees they can't use wages to buy morning-after pills or other products that offend the employer's religious belief.

"Of course, no one would argue that (Hobby Lobby owners) could seek, on religious grounds, to preclude their employees from spending their wages on contraception. This same rationale requires rejecting employers' demands to impose their religious views on employees through restrictions on the use of health insurance benefits," the health groups argued.

Susan Polan, associate executive director of the American Public Health Association, said the Hobby Lobby case is an important test of how far businesses can go in seeking to exempt coverage of health procedures they don't like.

"We're talking about women's access to reproductive health. That should be a decision between a patient and her health care provider, not a patient and her employer," Polan said this week.

___

Kristen Wyatt can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt

Mont. man in custody after release in 1979 slaying

2013-05-23T03:21:37Z

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The three-decade fight for freedom by a Montana man convicted of the 1979 slaying of a teenage classmate appeared to slam shut this week, when the Montana Supreme Court ordered him back to prison and took away his brief taste of normal life.

But from the time he confessed to out-of-state police four years after the notorious killing of Kim Nees, almost nothing about the Barry Beach case has been routine — and advocates promised they will find other ways to prove his innocence.

Beach has been a cause celebre among some influential state and national advocates who say his murder confession was coerced. Years of calls for his release culminated in a 2011 judge's order freeing him and laying the groundwork for a new trial, with testimony expected from witnesses who allege Nees was killed in an out-of-control fight among girls.

Before Wednesday, Beach had been settling into a new life in Billings, with a house and a job, after more than 27 years in prison for the killing. The state Supreme Court's reversal of the 2011 order puts Beach back in prison for what will likely be the rest of his life barring some kind of intervention.

A stunned Beach ate breakfast Wednesday morning with supporters, including the Billings mayor, before voluntarily turning himself in to finish his 100-year sentence with no chance for parole. Beach, wearing a T-shirt that read "I didn't do it," fielded calls from supporters and said he had received so many text messages that it was wearing out his phone battery.

"It was hard enough to be innocent to begin with," Beach told The Associated Press less than two hours before surrendering himself to authorities. "But to be going back, still innocent, for the second time, is just unbelievable."

Beach's polarizing case has nearly made him a household name in the state as his cause collected a lengthy list of supporters including former state legislators and other elected officials.

The case involves an endless string of strange details such as missing DNA evidence, indications that someone other than Beach or Nees was at the crime scene that summer night long ago and murmurings over the years that a group of women privately was taking credit for the crime. All that, coupled with allegations that a relative to one of those women was on the local police force and broke into the evidence room prior to the trial.

"Barry Beach's case has been powerful for a lot of people in this state and in this country partly because of the unique characteristics," said former journalist Jessie McQuillan, who covered the case as a reporter and now runs the Montana Innocence Project. "I am just amazed at the wide range of people that have been drawn to his case."

Yet many have joined the victims' immediate family and others in adamant belief of Beach's guilt. That includes the original prosecutor, who went on to become one of the state's most popular governors, and the current Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice, who as attorney general forcefully defended Beach's conviction.

A majority of court justices sided with those supporters Tuesday, ruling that Beach's lengthy 1983 confession to detectives in Louisiana outweighed hearsay witnesses who told the district court judge in 2011 that Nees might have been killed by a jealous gang of girls.

A split court said Beach did not meet the threshold of proving innocence, and upheld his 1984 conviction. The court cited past legal setbacks for Beach, including a clemency panel that roundly rejected the innocence claim.

"After a review of all the evidence, we conclude that Beach did not provide reliable evidence of his actual innocence that displaced the trial evidence and thus his conviction," the justices wrote.

Attorney General Tim Fox lauded the work of attorneys who defended the conviction.

"Their diligent efforts honor the memory of Kimberly Nees and hopefully bring about some sense of closure for her mother, Diane Nees," Fox said.

Reached by telephone Wednesday, Diane Nees declined comment. "I haven't talked during this whole episode so I will not start now," she said.

But even in the Nees family — like the rest of Montana — there are different opinions on the case.

Glena Nees Lockman, who identified herself as a cousin of the victim, said she was "sick to her stomach" that Beach was back in custody years after she became convinced of his innocence after hearing from the witnesses in Poplar.

"I had high hopes the state would finally go after those responsible for killing Kim," Lockman said.

The Montana Supreme Court indicated its decision concluded the legal "saga." But in this case packed with unusual legal twists and turns nothing seems certain — and advocates led by Centurion Ministries promised to keep pushing for Beach again to be released.

Before he walked into the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Office to surrender, Beach made the most of his 17 months of freedom, cognizant that it could come to a quick end, his mother said.

He started his own handyman business and later got a job doing maintenance at a hotel. For fun he would go water skiing, bowling, camping, fishing and attend local school sporting events.

"As long as there's a breath in a person there's a fight, or there should be fight," said Beach's mother, Bobbi Clincher. "To one of my friends today I said, 'Will it ever end?" It's just been unending ... But there are other courts in the land, and you just continue to do what you have to do."

Beach's attorney, Peter Camiel, suggested there could be ways to get the case before the federal courts again, or even the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This case is not over. There could be more to this story," Camiel said. "This is a big setback, but it is not the end."

___

Gouras reported from Helena, Mont.

Court: State can block out of state use of FOIA

2013-04-29T14:21:02Z

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it's legal for Virginia to block out-of-state people from using its Freedom of Information Act to get state documents.

The court unanimously upheld a federal appeals court decision validating Virginia's limitation of its FOIA law to state citizens and some media outlets.

Men from California and Rhode Island wanted to use the Virginia FOIA law to get state documents, but were denied because they are not Virginia citizens. The two men argued that it was unconstitutional to not allow everyone access to the protections of a state's FOIA law.

Justice Samuel Alito says that Virginia made most of the information the men wanted available to them and its refusal to make the rest of it available did not violate their constitutional rights.

TV-over-Internet service Aereo expands to Boston

2013-04-23T17:49:01Z

NEW YORK (AP) — Aereo, the television-over-the-Internet service that is threatening the broadcast and cable TV industries, is expanding to Boston on May 15.

With prices starting at $8 a month, Aereo will offer 28 Boston-area broadcast channels, plus the cable channel Bloomberg TV. Service will be available in Boston and surrounding areas in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The Barry Diller-backed company announced in January that it plans to expand beyond New York to 22 additional U.S. markets. Boston represents the first metropolitan area outside New York. Others expected in the coming months include Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington.

Aereo converts television signals into computer data and sends them over the Internet to subscribers' computers and mobile devices. Subscribers can watch channels live or record them with an Internet-based digital video recorder. They can pause and rewind live television, just like a DVR.

Aereo sells its service as a low-cost alternative to cable or satellite TV, and it plans to target those who have dropped pay-TV service or never had one. Aereo offers far fewer channels than most pay-TV packages, but it could appeal to viewers who already turn to Hulu, Netflix and other online sources for TV shows and movies.

Broadcasters see Aereo as a threat to their revenue, even though stations already make signals available for free. Broadcasters are increasingly supplementing advertising revenue with fees they get from cable and satellite TV companies for redistributing their stations to subscribers. If customers drop their pay-TV service and use Aereo instead, broadcasters would lose some of that revenue.

So far, federal courts have ruled against broadcasters' claims that Aereo's service constitutes copyright infringement. Aereo claims what it is doing is legal because it has thousands of tiny antennas at its data centers and assigns individual subscribers their own antenna. According to Aereo, that makes it akin to customers picking up free broadcast signals with a regular antenna at home. Broadcasters argue that the use of individual antennas is a mere technicality meant to circumvent copyright law.

Although the latest ruling, from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will likely be appealed, broadcasting companies have already threatened to take their stations off the air. The Fox and Univision television networks are among those that say they might end their free broadcasts and become a subscription-only channel like CNN, Nickelodeon and Discovery.

In a Twitter post Tuesday responding to the Boston expansion, CBS Corp. spokesman Dana McClintock vowed, "And we will be there to sue them." In an email, McClintock said the specifics of such a lawsuit were still to be determined.

If such a lawsuit is filed, Aereo could seek to have the cases consolidated in New York, where the company has had favorable rulings. But if broadcasters succeed in keeping the cases separate, they would have a better chance of winning in Boston because Massachusetts is part of a different appellate region and would not be bound by the 2nd Circuit's past rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court — or Congress — would be left to settle any conflicting rulings.

Aereo's Boston expansion will initially be available only to those who had pre-registered for the service. The New York-based company said others would be able to join after May 30.

Subscribers must live in one of 16 counties: Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, or Worcester in Massachusetts; Belknap, Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham or Strafford counties in New Hampshire; or Windham County in Vermont.

___

Online:

Aereo: http://aereo.com