Fischetti told a lower court judge the district attorney's office set up a telephone hot line to receive calls about Barbour and he wanted to do something similar.

"I want to put up a hot line with her (the victim's) name on it (and place it) in the newspapers," Fischetti said. "We believe that this alleged victim has made these false allegations before."

The court upheld the judge's decision not to allow it, saying that Fischetti had shown no good faith basis for suggesting the girl had a history of falsely accusing anyone. It said that without such a showing, the policy interest of having sex crimes victims come forward without fear of exposure "outweighs what would amount to a fishing expedition."

Barbour, 40, pleaded not guilty in December to charges of sexual abuse and criminal sex act against the girl, a fan and aspiring actress, in 2001.

Barbour was starring in "Jane Eyre," and a high school drama teacher arranged for the girl and her parents to see the musical. The girl, now 20, went backstage alone after the show, and Barbour began touching her sexually, prosecutors said.

The bill also implements a first-to-file standard consistent with international practice.

"Intellectual property industries not only drive a significant part of the American economy, but also provide millions of Americans with well-paying jobs," bill co-sponsor Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a statement. "The Patent Reform Act protects intellectual property by addressing critical weaknesses in the current law and eliminating the legal gamesmanship that rewards lawsuit abuses over creativity."

The bill now goes before the full U.S. House for an as yet unscheduled floor vote. Similar legislation is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has a vote scheduled on the bill Thursday.

Since the legislation was first introduced in April, the pharmaceutical, bio-technology and manufacturing companies have lined up to oppose the key portions of the legislation.

Wednesday, though, that opposition seemed to be lessening.

"The leadership and several members of the committee recognized that changes to the bill are still necessary and we look forward to working with them to further improve the bill," 3M's Gary Griswold, representing the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, said in a statement. "While there is still much work to do before the coalition can support the legislation, we are encouraged by the incremental progress made during today's mark-up."

Griswold added that while the group, which includes Eli Lilly, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and Proctor & Gamble, still has "serious concerns" about the bill, amendments to it approved Wednesday were a "positive step." The amendments narrow the "second window" of post-grant reviews.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved much the same amendments.

According to Sen. Patrick Leahy, infringement damages would be limited, "unless the claimant shows that the patent's specific contribution over the prior art is the predominant basis for market demand for an infringing product or process."

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) added an amendment that seeks to eliminate the popular practice of "forum shopping" by limiting venues for patent-infringement cases.

"Few issues are as important to the economic strength of the United States as our ability to create and protect intellectual property," Smith said. "The Patent Reform Act of 2007 updates current law to better protect intellectual property, enhance patent quality and increase public confidence in the integrity of patents."

Microsoft has been hit with a new class action lawsuit alleging that the company's Xbox 360 console damages game discs.

"Microsoft improperly and/or negligently manufactured the Xbox 360 console in a manner that causes the expensive game discs ... to be scratched, rendering the games unusable," the suit alleges.

The complaint was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Southern California by two residents of the state: Christine Moskowitz and Dan Wood. The suit is seeking not less than $5 million in damages for Xbox 360 buyers affected by the alleged glitch.

Microsoft was slapped with a similar action last week in a Florida court.

In the California court filing, Moskowitz says that in March 2006 she purchased for her son an Xbox 360, along with the popular games Gears of War, Crackdown, and Saints Row. Within a few months, the games bore circular scratch marks and wouldn't work properly, Moskowitz claims. Wood says he purchased an Xbox 360 last December and the unit soon damaged his copy of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell.

Both plaintiffs claim that the Xbox 360 console damaged their discs and that Microsoft refused to replace the ruined games or pay for them.

Earlier this month, Microsoft acknowledged that a hardware defect in the console was leading to what the company called "an unacceptable number" of general hardware failures. To deal with the problem, Microsoft said it would extend the warranty period on the units by three years, at a cost of between $1.05 billion and $1.15 billion.

The company made no mention of a disc scratching problem, however.

On Tuesday, Microsoft announced that Xbox division head Peter Moore was leaving the company to take a position at games publisher Electronic Arts.

In their lawsuit, Moskowitz and Wood argue that Microsoft's scramble to get a next-generation video game system into the market to compete with those from rivals Sony and Nintendo is at the root of the Xbox 360's problems. "Microsoft's rush to market, while positive for Microsoft, was detrimental to consumers because the Xbox 360 suffered from numerous hardware defects," the suit claims.

Responding to the Florida lawsuit, a Microsoft spokesman told InformationWeek that the company has not received a significant number of complaints about scratched discs, despite the fact that "there are millions of Xbox consoles in use."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the decision to allow the development of two waterfront casinos in Philadelphia.

The decision affirms the decision of state regulators to allow Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia and SugarHouse Casino to open slots parlors on Columbus Boulevard in Philadelphia. The case was brought by a rival casino proposal whose application was rejected.

However, both casinos must still get city approvals. The casinos could open as early as next year, pending city approvals.

It's likely neighborhood groups, who have fought the proposals, will continue their opposition.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the decision to allow the development of two waterfront casinos in Philadelphia.

The decision affirms the decision of state regulators to allow Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia and SugarHouse Casino to open slots parlors on Columbus Boulevard in Philadelphia. The case was brought by a rival casino proposal whose application was rejected.

However, both casinos must still get city approvals. The casinos could open as early as next year, pending city approvals.

It's likely neighborhood groups, who have fought the proposals, will continue their opposition.

In a 2 to 1 decision in March, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's prohibition against residents keeping handguns in their homes is unconstitutional. In May, the full appeals court declined a petition from the city to reconsider the panel's decision.

Some gun control advocates have cautioned that a defeat in the Supreme Court could lead to tough gun laws being overturned in major cities, including New York, Chicago and Detroit. Fenty said the District had no choice but to fight because more guns in homes could lead to increases in violent crime and deadly accidents.

"The handgun ban has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect," Fenty said. "Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, 'Mayor Fenty, you've got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.' "

Gun rights advocates welcomed the chance to take the fight to the high court. A central question the D.C. case poses is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to keep and bear arms.

Experts say gun rights advocates have never had a better chance for a major Second Amendment victory, because a significant number of justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a preference for the individual-rights interpretation.

"Any accurate, unbiased reading of American history is going to come down to this being an individual right," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "To deny people the right to own a firearm in their home for personal protection is simply out of step with the Constitution."

The city's three-decade-old gun ban was challenged by six D.C. residents -- backed by the libertarian Cato Institute -- who said they wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack in Congress and in the courts.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the issue, in Miller v. the United States, is considered by many to define the right to bear arms as being given to militias, not to individuals.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the residents' lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- several years ago, ruling that the amendment was tailored to membership in a militia.

But the appeals panel ruled in March that the District has a right to regulate and require registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks.

"We're very pleased the case will go to the Supreme Court," said Alan Gura, an attorney for the residents. "We believe it will hear the case and will affirm that the Bill of Rights does protect the individual."

Singer said she will receive pro bono legal assistance from several high-profile constitutional law experts, including former acting solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III. She called the city's handgun laws "reasonable" and said many handguns are used in illegal activities.

"This is not a law which takes away the rights to keep and bear arms," Dellinger said. "It regulates one kind of weapon: handguns."

Singer said she will ask for a 30-day extension to file the District's appeal with the Supreme Court, which would push the deadline to Sept. 5. The city's handgun laws will remain in effect throughout the appeal, Singer said.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this case, it could produce the most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "If the U.S. Supreme Court follows the words of the U.S. Constitution and the Court's own precedents, it should reverse the Appeals Court ruling and allow the District's law to stand."

Akal Security Inc., one of the largest contract security providers in the country, will pay the United States $18 million to resolve allegations that it violated the terms of its contract to provide trained civilian guards at eight U.S. Army bases, the Justice Department announced today. According to the settlement, some of the supplied security guards allegedly failed to satisfy weapons qualification requirements and receive other training, and the contractor allegedly failed to satisfy contractual man-hour requirements.

In September 2003, the U.S. Army awarded a series of contracts for security guards to the Espanola, N.M., company for bases in Kansas, Washington, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama. The company agreed at that time to provide fully trained personnel who were weapons qualified in accordance with military police firearms requirements.

In October 2004, three company employees, who worked as security guards at Ft. Riley, Kan., filed a qui tam or whistleblower suit against the company on behalf of the United States in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Under the qui tam statute, a private party, known as a “relator,” can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery. The relators in this case will receive a share of the settlement that has yet to be determined.

“Today’s settlement illustrates the Justice Department’s determination to recover paid out funds where terms of government contracts are not met,” said Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

The settlement resolves Akal’s potential liability under the False Claims Act arising from the complaint. The litigation and settlement of the case was conducted by the Department’s Civil Division along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas, as well as the U. S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Kentucky, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Washington, the Western District of Texas, the Southern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Alabama, and the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case was investigated by the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service Office of the Defense Inspector General, and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.