ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation

CLERK RECEIVED. JTW OR UiSThICT ØF OL tikbta. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC1 lit ETSY, INC., Petitioner

18 105G. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT Oi, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB &!IPANIC MEDIA COALITION, Petitioner CASE NO. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

B t NA L. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAl. wr FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU] f FOR DITRIT Q QCLJMHA ILtUIt

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. v. ) NOTICE OF ERRATA TO PETITION FOR REVIEW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 402(a), 28 U.S.C. 2342(1) and 2344, and Federal

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the Supreme Court of the United States

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMl\USSION Washington D.C

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:18-cv JAM-DB Document 15 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:18-cv JAM-DB Document 34 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 8

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Circuit

STATE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION REGARDING INFORMAL COMPLAINTS

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015. DISTRICT OF COWMBAaijh 1

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC, Applicant, v. UNIVERSAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF COMPTEL

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC. S OPPOSITION TO FCC S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIVEHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR REVIEW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

\{."--, Under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), Section 706 of

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case , Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, , Page1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv RMC Document 12 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 4:16-cv ALM Document 10 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 779

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Tel: (202)

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

FOR DISTRIGT OF COLUMBIA 9fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; EAST

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION OF TELMATE, LLC FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No ORAL ARGUMENT HELD JUNE 1, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON

MAJOR COURT DECISIONS, 2006

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

Case 1:16-cv RJL Document 146 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Transcription:

" ~ ~~~ ~Ui1i-~~~~ "!feb SfAfES S9Vfff I" I:O::~::~CIR: ~?~;'~~~j THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK MOZILLA CORPORATION, v. Petitioner, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. Case No. 18- -~ PROTECTIVE PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706,47 U.S.C. 402(a), 28 U.S.C. 2342 and 2344 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), the Mozilla Corporation ("Mozilla") hereby petitions this Court for review of the final order of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") captioned in Restoring Internet Freedom, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, WC Docket No. 17-108, FCC 17-166 (rei. Jan. 4,2018) ("Order"). Mozilla is providing an electronic copy of the Order on compact disc with this petition. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2343. In the Order, the FCC formally eliminates the rules that the FCC promulgated in 2015 and were upheld by this Court. See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order On Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Red. 5601 (2015), aff'd sub nom. United States Telecom Ass 'n v. FCC,

825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In that case, this Court held that the FCC had properly exercised its authority to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and to promulgate five rules to promote Internet openness. In the Order on review here, the FCC departs from its prior reasoning and precedent, reclassifies broadband Internet access service as an information servicesubject to Title I of the Communications Act and eliminates the five rules, among other things. Mozilla seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706, it abdicates the FCC's statutory mandate, and it is otherwise contrary to law. Mozilla files this protective petition for review out of abundance of caution. Mozilla, which participated in the proceeding below, is aggrieved by the Order. While the Order is clear on its face that the period for filing review of this Order commences on the date that a summary is published in the Federal Register, Order ~ 359, prior protective petitions for review of the FCC's open Internet rules have been filed in multiple circuits on similar grounds. See, e.g., Protective Petition for Review of the United States Telecom Association, USTA v. FCC, Case No. 15-1063 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 23,2015); Petition for Review of Alamo Broadband, Alamo Broadband v. FCC, Case No. 15-1078 (5th Cir. Mar. 23,2015). In USTA, for example, US Telecom and Alamo filed protective petitions within ten days of 2

public release of the FCC's final order, but prior to Federal Register publication. The FCC objected to the protective petitions, but it nevertheless forwarded them to the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") panel for inclusion in the lottery on March 27, 2015. The MDL panel then held the lottery on March 30,2015, almost two weeks before Federal Register publication, which occurred on April 13, 2015. See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, 80 Fed. Reg. 19,738 (Apr. 13,2015). As a result, any party that failed to file a protective petition was excluded from the lottery. By filing this protective petition, Mozilla seeks to preserve its rights and avoid a result similar to USTA with respect to the lottery. Mozilla respectfully requests that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside the Order, and provide additional relief as may be appropriate. Jishnu Menon Denelle Dixon Mozilla Corporation 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041 (650) 903-0800 Dated: January 16,2018 Respectfully submitted, M~I:~t~-- Markham C. Erickson Georgios Leris Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-3000 Counsel for Petitioner Mozilla Corporation 3

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and this Court's Rule 26.1, the Mozilla Corporation respectfully submits the following corporate disclosure statement. Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit corporation that has not issued shares or debt securities to the public. The Mozilla Foundation does not have any parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates that have issued shares or debt securities to the public. The Mozilla Foundation's mission is to ensure an open Internet accessible to all. Respectfully submitted, Jishnu Menon Denelle Dixon Mozilla Corporation 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View, CA 94041 (650) 903-0800 Dated: January 16,2018 Markham C. Erickson Georgios Leris Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-3000 Counsel for Petitioner Mozilla Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Georgios Leris, hereby certify that on January 16,2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing Protective Petition for Review and Corporate Disclosure Statement to be served on the following counsel by the manner indicated: By First Class Mail and Electronic Mail Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. General Counsel Federal Communications Commission Room 8-A741 445 12th St., SW Washington, DC 20054 thomas.j ohnson@fcc.gov By First Class Mail Jefferson B. Sessions Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530