Technology Law Source

Privacy and Security Roundup: The FBI removes malicious web shells from Microsoft Exchange Servers, clarity on auto-dialers and new privacy legislation

The technology industry is constantly evolving and trusted legal advice is more important than ever. The attorneys in our Privacy and Data Security practice group are proud to offer a new blog series to provide curated data privacy and security news, developments and things to know moving forward. We will provide analysis designed to keep you and your organization up to speed.

Our first roundup includes news on the FBI removing malicious web shells from Microsoft’s servers, clarity on auto-dialers and new privacy legislation from author Kevin Scott. We hope you enjoy this new series! Continue Reading

Google v. Oracle: Use of copyrightable computer code is a fair use

In a highly awaited software copyright decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that Google LLC’s copying of Oracle’s Java application programming interface (API) is a fair use as a matter of law. Java is a programming language and computing platform originally developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc., which was acquired by Oracle America, Inc. in 2009. Java is popular and widely used in many applications such as laptops, game consoles, supercomputers, mobile phones and websites because it provides clear and consistent code.

Continue Reading

A different approach—Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act

With Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s signature on March 2, 2021, Virginia, a bit surprisingly, became the second state to set comprehensive rules for how companies handle and share personal information. Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023, incidentally the same day as the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), a ballot measure that will strengthen the landmark California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). While Virginia’s CDPA and California’s CCPA share several features, each law takes a somewhat different approach.

Continue Reading

Avoiding smart contract conflicts despite ambiguity

A version of this article was originally published by Law360 on Oct. 21, 2020.

Depending on whom you ask, the promise of smart contracts ranges from the mundane to the fantastic—from helping to “facilitate, verify, execute and enforce the terms of a commercial agreement”[i] to ushering in the end of contract law by providing a technological alternative to the legal system.[ii] Smart contracts have already been used in connection with real estate transactions,[iii] bank bonds,[iv] interbank transfers,[v] invoice financing,[vi] and homeowners, renters, pet, and flight-delay insurance.[vii] B3i Services AG, an insurance startup owned by 20 of the world’s largest insurers and reinsurers,[viii] released an application that uses smart contracts to allow participants to “negotiate terms, agree on rates and complete contract placements.”[ix] By February 2020, nine insurers, four major brokerage firms, and eight reinsurers had concluded 30 reinsurance contracts through the application, including, according to B3i, “some of the world’s most complex Catastrophe Excess of Loss (XoL) reinsurance treaties.”[x]

Continue Reading

Two new opinions address personal jurisdiction and standing under BIPA

Two recent district court opinions addressed issues of personal jurisdiction and standing under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA imposes a number of requirements on those who obtain a person’s biometric data, including those set forth in Section 15(a), requiring those in possession of biometric data to develop a publicly available written policy regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in their possession, in Section 15(b), requiring that each person be provided with required disclosures and obtaining that person’s written release prior to acquiring that data, and in Section 15(c), which prohibits those in possession of biometric data from selling or profiting from that data, or disclosing that data to third parties.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court says “booking dot yeah” to federal registration in Booking.com trademark case

After filing applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nearly eight years ago, Booking.com, the travel registration website known for its punny commercial tagline, celebrated victory on June 30, 2020. In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the trademark BOOKING.COM is not generic, and therefore eligible for registration.

Continue Reading

USPTO expedites review of COVID-19-related trademark and patent applications

With an eye toward supporting the fast-moving research and development process of COVID-19 treatments, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced two new programs aimed at expediting review of certain mark and patent applications. Under each program, applicants must demonstrate that the product or process is directly correlated to COVID-19.

Continue Reading

What you need to know about Section 889 compliance as we move closer to the August 2020 implementation deadline

A major portion of the sweeping John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) that impacts federal contracts will take effect in August 2020. Section 889 prohibits the federal government from directly procuring “any equipment, system or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as a part of any system” or entering into a contract with any entity that uses such covered telecommunications equipment or services.

Continue Reading

Seventh Circuit’s procedural ruling under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act may affect substantive rights of parties

On April 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc. that plaintiffs lack standing to assert in federal courts claims arising under Section 15(a) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for failing to develop a publicly available policy for the retention and destruction of biometric data, because they do not incur actual damages as a result of the violation. Although the immediate effect of this procedural ruling is that plaintiffs cannot assert claims under Section 15(a) in federal courts within the Seventh Circuit, courts may rely on the ruling to apply Illinois’ two-year statute of limitation to state court actions asserting claims under Section 15(a), and hold that actions under this section are not insurable as a matter of law.

Continue Reading

LexBlog