Blog Post

Justin Farooq

The Midyear Meeting took place February 5, 2017 in Miami.  One of the most talked about events centered around five panelists at the “Legal Innovation 101” discussion.[1]  The consensus of five panelists’ message was simple: Catching up with legal technology is no longer a luxury in a tough market for legal services. While sorting through options may seem daunting at first, firms that embrace technology and new methods will be at a huge advantage.[2]  There are many new tools, methods, markets and models that can give law firms a leg up on the competition but lawyers must embrace them.[3]  It is important to remember that these new technologies are not intended to replace attorneys, but rather to augmentation technology that will allow a lawyer to increase production for the law firm.[4]  For example, here are two technology tools that are already paying off for lawyers:

        (1) ABA Blueprint, a service that offers back-office help to lawyers who say administrative tasks are cutting into their time practicing law, is aimed primarily at solo practitioners and attorneys in small firms.[5]

        (2) Lawhub offers members an extensive assortment of legal resources on a single page, for example case law, discussions, statutes, case preparation plans, marketing, finance and more are all available for New York State Bar members.[6]  Many believe that eventually this will replace bar web sites.[7]

 

[1] American Bar Association, ABA Midyear Meeting, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/departments_offices/meetings_travel_dept/midyear2017.html.

[2] American Bar Association, Legal Innovation 101: Get With the Program or Get Left Behind Experts Say During Midyear Meeting (Feb, 6, 2017, 12:28 PM), http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/02/legal_innovation101.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

Brittany Charles

In early 2017, the battle between U.S. law enforcement agencies and major tech companies continues to rage on. In February, a Philadelphia Magistrate Judge, ruled against recent precedence, and ordered a Gmail provider to comply with a FBI warrant requesting emails of gmail users stored outside of the U.S.. Google relied on the recent precedence, claiming that turning over emails stored outside of the U.S. places non-U.S. citizens at risk for violations of privacy. However, the judge contended reviewing emails locally that were previously stored on foreign servers and transferred to U.S. servers, does not qualify as a seizure.

The recent precedence Google referred to was a case brought forth by Microsoft in 2016, where the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York held that Microsoft could not be forced to turn over emails stored in Dublin. The tech industry applauded the 2016 decision, but now the recent ruling has some tech giants concerned about their ability to comply with other country’s data protection and privacy laws. Law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. send tens of thousands of warrants to tech companies requesting user’s information. Information that can be stored locally or abroad, for U.S. and non-U.S. citizens alike.

What is the silver lining for this particular ruling? It’s narrowly-tailored…in a way. In the 2016 ruling, Microsoft provided evidence that the information being sought was on foreign servers, however, Google presented no such evidence for this case. In theory, this decision is only enforcing the notion that if a tech company provides evidence of information being stored on foreign servers, that information would be protected. However, as the battle rages on and jurisdictions continue to render decisions that seemingly oppose one another, one thing is for certain: tech giants are going to need lawyers.

Google to Appeal Against Order to Hand Over User Emails Stored Outside U.S., The Guardian, (Feb. 6, 2017 at 5:41), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/06/google-gmail-to-appeal-against-order-to-hand-over-user-emails-stored-outside-us.

Annie Millar

Over the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased interest in hearing argument on intellectual property cases. That interest does not seem to be dwindling. As a result, there are five cases that you should be on the lookout for in 2017.

Case One: Racial Slurs in Trademarks: Acceptable or Unconstitutional?

The Lanham Act bars the use of disparaging terms, and on January 18th the Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the name of an Asian-American rock band, The Slants, fell under that category. The issue falls on the issue of whether the disparaging terms exclusion is an impermissible restriction of the user’s freedom of speech. While the band members consider this term a badge of honor, the USPTO sees this as a racial slur.

Lee v. Tam, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-1293

Case Two: Forum Shopping for Filing Suit

Often times, depending on where suit is filed will have an effect on whether you win or lose. For example, in East Texas plaintiffs are heavily favored, and as a result 40 percent of U.S. patent lawsuits are filed. This case focuses on one main issue; whether to limit where patent suits may be filed.

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 16-341

Case Three: Resale of Patented Products

The concept of the exhaustion doctrine is an essential part of patent law, which allows someone to do what they wish with something they purchased, such as resell the product. The court will take up the issue of how far this exhaustion doctrine reaches this year.

Products v. Lexmark, U.S. Supreme Court No. 15-1189

Case Four: Active Inducement

The Patent Act limits active inducement liability to those who export “all or substantially all” of the parts of a patented product to build or assemble that product abroad, likely at a reduced cost. This case addressed the issue: whether “substantially all” relates to the quantity of the product used, or the importance of the ingredients used.

Life Technologies v. Promega, Supreme Court No. 14-1538

Case Five: Argue Against the USPTO

Aqua Products, with an invention for a robotic pool cleaner, is arguing that the USPTO’s regulations governing the amendment of patent claims during inter partes review violates the America Invents Act by shifting the burden to the applicant to prove the amended claims were patent eligible. With the new regulations of the America Invents Act, it is likely issues such as these will continue to pop up.

In re Aqua Products, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 15-1177

Keep your eye on these cases in the Supreme Court this year, as they may alter the way we interpret intellectual property law in the United States.
The Fashion Law, The 5 Intellectual Property Cases that You Cannot Miss in 2017 (Jan. 10, 2017), http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/the-5-intellectual-property-cases-that-you-cannot-miss-in-2017.

Xiang Qi

The Silicon Valley was never a fan of Trump’s presidency and once again, they are making their disagreement heard to the White House. Soon after the White House announced its controversial travel ban last week, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was under pressure during his regular meeting at Uber headquarter in San Francisco when he was encountered by at least two employee asking what it takes for him to quit the advisory council. Like Mr. Kalanick, Peter Thiel, who is on the board of Facebook, has been under pressure for his role in the Trump administration.

Thanks to Mr. Kalanick’s involvement in the Advisory Board, Uber’s arch-rival, Lyft, is happily taking customers away from Uber as there have been over 200,000 Uber customers deleting their accounts recently.

As a result of all the internal and external pressure on him and Uber, Mr. Kalanick has exited the advisory council and in his letter voiced his support for refugees and a open immigration reform. Although it may be his business interest that motivated Mr. Kalanick to join the Presidential Advisory Council in the first place, like many other tech company CEOs also on the Council, the disfavor of Trump administration’s policy might harm his personal reputation as well as Uber’s business interests in the end. So far, the Silicon Valley is still debating the way that works best for the companies to deal with a Trump administration.

Mike Isaac, Uber C.E.O. to Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism, NEW YORK TIMES, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront (last visited February 3, 2017).

Emma Fusco

Amazon and Expedia are the first two technology companies to oppose the immigration order as part of a lawsuit against the Trump Administration.  Their main issue: the order will hurt their business.  The suit asks the court to declare key parts of the executive order unconstitutional.

The order impairs both Expedia’s and Amazon’s ability to recruit and hire employees from overseas, which may undermine both, travel companies and international businesses.

This immigration ban has lit a fire in the hearts of many tech executives, as they too were once immigrant refugees.  Expedia’s chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi, fled his home country of Iran after the revolution in 1978.  “Ours is a nation of immigrants.  These are our roots, this is our soul.  All erased with the stroke of a pen.”

Though the lawsuit rests mainly on employment issues, there is a bigger picture here: people who are employed by these companies are now banned from their homes in the US, where their entire life is.

Employees of Google rallied at Google’s headquarters, making the Mountain View, California reminiscent of a college campus.  The quad swarmed with employees protesting the order.  Some signs said “Trump, Don’t Be Evil” and “Silicon Valley: Built by Immigrants.”  Silicon Valley, which has produced some of Trump’s favorite media platforms like Twitter, was created ground up by immigrants from countries the executive order has banned.  

At the protest was Google’s Co-founder, Sergey Brin, who came to the United States as a 6-year-old refugee when the wage of nuclear war was at its peak between the Soviet Union and the United States.  “I wouldn’t be where I am today or have any kind of life I have today if this wasn’t a great country that stood up and spoke for liberty.”

Nick Wingfield and Daisuke Wakabayashi, Amazon and Expedia Join Lawsuit Against Immigration Order as Tech’s Resistance Grows, N.Y. Times, Jan, 31, 2017), at A20.

Lishayne King

The ban of individuals from a number of largely Muslim countries has many struggling to grapple with the ban’s consequences and ramifications. The ban is of particular concern to the scientific community, as the ban “could hinder research, affect recruitment of top scientists and dampen the free exchange of scientific ideas.” The president of the Association of American Universities, Mary Sue Coleman, estimated that “there were about 17,000 students from the seven countries at American universities.” The ban has led some universities with students and faculty members from the seven named countries to advise against travel outside of the United States for an indefinite period. Conferences and scientific meetings within the United States, as well as abroad, stand to be affected. There is now the possibility that those important to the scientific community may not be able to return. Also affected by the Executive Order are eleven patients from the seven named countries in need of medical treatment. Some patients who travel from the Middle East to the United States need the treatment available in the United States because of an inability to access such treatment in their home countries, and due to these medical reasons, may not be able to wait.

Henry Fountain, Science Will Suffer Under Trump’s Travel Ban, Researchers Say, N.Y. Times, (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/science/scientists-donald-trump-travel-ban.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront.

Samantha Cirillo

As early as 1995, hundreds of children in the Indian town of Muzzaffarpur die each year from an unknown disease. [1] Every year the outbreak began in mid-May as the temperatures grew and ended during Monsoon season in late-July. [2] In 2014, 390 children were admitted into the hospital and 122 died. [3]

Researchers and medical experts were unable to pin the cause of the children’s illness until now. On Tuesday January 31, 2017, a study was published in the British Journal, The Lancet Global Health, conducted by India’s National Center for Disease Control and the India office of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. [4] The study found that the disease was caused by malnourished children eating Lychee Fruit. [5]

Dr. Rajesh Yadav, an investigator for India Epidemic Intelligence Service, was a leading researcher of the outbreak. Dr. Yadav collected over 300 biological samples and found that the infected children had dangerously low blood sugar levels. [6] Around the same time as Yadav’s study, a similar outbreak was occurring in the West Indies called the “Jamaican vomiting disease” that was linked to the high level of hypoglycin found in ackee fruit located in the area. [7] The hypoglycin inhibits the body’s ability to synthesize glucose which leads to extremely low blood sugar levels. [8] After comparing the outbreaks, Yadav conducted several laboratory tests that found similar levels of hypoglycin in the Lychee fruit. [9] Muzaffarpur grows 70% of India’s lychee harvest. [10]

In 2015, the Center for Disease Control was able to test the affected children’s urine to measure hypoglycin levels. [11] Nearly all of the children infected had consumed lychee within the past 24 hours and skipped an evening meal causing night-time hypoglycemia. [12] The lychee fruit that several children in the area consume contained seeds that lead to low blood sugar and brain inflammation. [13]

After the study was complete, the results pointed to the lychee fruit as the cause of the recent outbreak. Researchers instructed parents to limit children’s consumption of lychee fruit and to provide children with evening meals. [14] The study and outreach has reduced the level of cases significantly.

         

[1] Ellen Barry, Dangerous Fruit: Mystery of Deadly Outbreaks in India Is Solved, New York Times, (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/lychee-litchi-india-outbreak.html?_r=0.
[2] Id.
[3] Juliet Perry, Killer Fruit? Lychee cause of mysterious disease that plagued Indian town, CNN (Feb. 1, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/health/lychee-fatal-illness-india/index.html.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Barry, supra note 1.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Barry, supra note 1.
[12] Perry, supra note 3.
[13] Id.
[14] Barry, supra note 1.

Jeffrey Cullen

Today, there are many security threats to the well being of individuals, corporations, governments, and entities of all kinds. The method of gaining access to secured information has shifted to means of cybercrime and has become significantly effective. Each year, organizations experience data breaches resulting in compromised records of financial and personal information.[1]

Since January 2015, over $3 billion of damages have resulted from cyber attacks in the form of CEO email scams alone.[2] This year, the spending on security products worldwide is estimated to reach over $81 billion due to the increasingly complicated threats of hackers.[3] There are many types of hackers who attempt to gain finances and information for various reasons. Hacktivists, terrorists, and state-backed hackers have different motives and objectives in the acquisition and dissemination of our information. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish perpetrators of virtual crimes however; many of these crimes begin in the same way, often with a prompt. It is vital that security companies employ personnel who are capable of improving security features at the same rate to which hackers are evolving, and to identify and eliminate dangers right when they appear.

 

[1] Steve Ranger, Cybercrime and cyberwar: A spotter’s guide to the groups that are out to get you, ZDNet (Sept. 1, 2016), http://www.zdnet.com/article/cybercrime-and-cyberwar-a-spotters-guide-to-the-groups-that-are-out-to-get-you/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

Aiden Scott

Zero-rating is a practice that occurs when ISP’s allow consumers to visit certain websites, or use certain apps without impacting their monthly data limits. Companies such as T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon have all been part of a yearlong investigation that has been conducted by the FCC. The FCC noted that AT&T and Verizon’s approaches to zero-rating pose a particular threat to net neutrality because the companies choose to exempt their own services from counting against subscriber’s monthly data limits. AT&T has attempted to defend what it calls its “Sponsored Data service” by stating that it offers the same terms to all businesses that want to participate.Similarly, Comcast has also come under fire by giving its Stream TV service a significant connectivity advantage over other programs. While Comcast grants its service higher connectivity through a dedicated line in its customer’s cable connection, the issue that still worries consumer advocates such as Public knowledge is that allowing ISP’s to treat certain websites, and apps differently will ultimately be harmful to the consumer.

See Brian Fung,  The FCC is Dropping its Probe Into Internet Providers Over This Controversial Practice, Wash Post, (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-government-is-dropping-its-probe-into-a-controversial-practice-by-your-internet-provider/?utm_term=.a803c74f6d90

Annie Millar

In the 21st century news reporters rely heavily on technology. Computers and cellphones are the tools required to get information to the public as fast as possible. Without the opportunity to send out information quickly, reporters would be at a disadvantage. But, reporters face issues when waltzing into a federal court house.

Mike Isaac experienced this first hand when he excitedly walked into a courtroom in Dallas, Texas. Stopped by a United States Marshal, Isaac’s continuous twitter feed of Mark Zuckerberg’s time on the stand skidded to a halt. Mr. Zuckerberg was involved in a $2 billion intellectual property lawsuit for the theft of virtual reality technology and Isaac was driven to tweet the details of his testimony as quickly as possible.

Little did Isaac know, “[f]ederal courts have rather strict rules around electronics and recording devices inside courtrooms, the laws of which go back much further than some of the software and services we use to broadcast news today.”

As a result, this issue demonstrates the age old battle; old customs versus budding technology. It is clear that federal courtrooms do not want live streams, videos, or photographs taken by reporters in the courtroom. It is also clear that reporters want full access to trial, as well as the ability to inform the public in real time. As it currently stands, the federal courts are clearly winning.

As an intern in a federal district courthouse this past summer, I saw issues of this nature first hand. The entrances were littered with signs, indicating cell phones were strictly prohibited. Additionally United States Marshals were continuously monitoring the courtrooms to make sure orders were not violated.

Being a budding lawyer, as well as a person who relies heavily on technology, I understand both sides of the argument. The question then becomes, will the courts change their ways, or will the old school pad and paper continue to be essential for reporters in the courtroom.
Mike Isaac, A Trial and a Twitterstorm: On Live-Tweeting From a Federal Courthouse, The New York Times (Jan. 24, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/insider/a-trial-and-a-twitterstorm-on-live-tweeting-from-a-federal-courthouse.html.