Source: https://www.whitecase.com/publications/newsletter/white-case-technology-newsflash
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 07:26:14
Document Index: 430368667

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 281', '§ 101', '§ 2710', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', '§101']

White & Case Technology Newsflash | White & Case LLP
The State of California is home to almost 40 million consumers and the world's fifth largest economy. It represents a key exposure to most financial services companies' US footprint. In recent years nonbank financial services companies have been subject to increased scrutiny by the California state legislature and the Department of Business Oversight ("DBO"), which regulates and supervises the financial services industry. As a result, companies that operate, or intend to operate, in California must often navigate a complex regulatory landscape, subject to swift change and transformation.
Global law firm White & Case LLP has contributed to the 2nd edition of Technology M&A, published by Getting the Deal Through. The book covers key considerations for technology M&A transactions in 16 jurisdictions. Partner Arlene Arin Hahn and Associate Neeta Sahadev are Contributing Editors for the book and also co-authored the United States chapter.
Connected and autonomous vehicles ("CAVs") are expected to become a reality on roads across modern economies in the near future. In 2018, the EU estimated that, provided a sufficient regulatory and enabling framework is in place, CAVs could be available on a commercial basis by 2020, and commonplace by 2030. Estimates in the US are similar. On a financial level, forecasts have suggested that by 2050, the global CAVs industry could be worth upwards of $7 trillion, and that the CAV taxi market might be worth more than $2 trillion per year by 2030.
The Japan Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") issued "Guidelines Concerning Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position in Transactions between Digital Platform Operators and Consumers that Provide Personal Information, etc." ("Guidelines") on December 17, 2019.
In April 2019, Toyota announced it would provide royalty-free patent licenses for its vehicle electrification technology. Toyota joins Tesla as the latest auto manufacturer to leverage its intellectual property to increase adoption of new technologies—particularly where there is little dispute over the need to develop sustainable mobility options to combat rising emissions.
Empowered by technology that continues to grow at an exponential rate, automotive and tech companies around the world are racing to bring autonomous vehicles to the road. In this race, companies face the challenge of balancing the large amounts of data saved every second on an AV with the pressing public need for increased safety on our roads.
The convergence of technology with other sectors has been the driving force behind much of Israel's tech boom in the past decade. And in 2017, Intel's acquisition of Mobileye, a developer of ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems), for US$15 billion thrust Israel's automotive technology (autotech) industry firmly into the spotlight.
The National People's Congress of China (NPC) adopted the new Foreign Investment Law (FIL) on March 15, 2019, with a view toward unifying and streamlining the foreign investment framework into China. One of the main emphases under the FIL is to further strengthen protections of the foreign investors' intellectual property rights under Chinese law. In particular, the FIL calls for stricter protections against intellectual property infringement and further encourages "voluntary and fair" technology collaboration between foreign investors and Chinese parties. The FIL also seeks to prohibit Chinese government agencies from "forcing" a foreign investor to commit to technology transfers in China as a condition of investment.
With only 100 days left in 2019 as of the date of this publication, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will be here before you know it. As we have described previously, the CCPA applies to a wide range of for-profit companies (and potentially their subsidiaries) that do business in California.
As we have previously discussed, claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) are commonly asserted as a means of protecting online data from unwanted scraping activity. The scope and application of the CFAA, however, have been subject to significant, and sometimes conflicting, judicial consideration. Last week's highly anticipated decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. marks the latest decision in this evolving judicial narrative.
On 12 February 2019, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics1. After describing AI as "one of the strategic technologies of the 21st century", the European Parliament presented several recommendations to the Member States. This Resolution underlines the need to close the European gap with North America and Asia-Pacific, and promotes a coordinated approach at the European level "to be able to compete with the massive investments made by third countries, especially the US and China".
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further clarified the "all substantial rights" doctrine related to patent infringement and assignment. The court held that Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC's (Lone Star) patent transfer agreement with Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) did not result in the transfer of "all substantial rights" necessary to bring a patent infringement case under 35 U.S.C. § 281. Nos. 2018-1581, 2018-1582, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16077, *1,*18 (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2019). Further, the court vacated and remanded the case for the district court to consider whether AMD, as the patentee, should be joined as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 19.
On August 8, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") proposed amendments to crucial disclosure requirements under Regulation S-K, including Item 101 (Description of Business), Item 103 (Legal Proceedings) and Item 105 (Risk Factors) as part of its ongoing initiative to update and modernize its disclosure.
Don't worry – it's publicly available on the internet!
New York Continues State's Charge to Protect Consumers' Personal Information
New York recently amended its existing data breach notification law to expand the data breach notification obligations of persons and businesses (and state agencies) and impose specific data security requirements on persons and businesses to protect its residents' personal information. Under SB 5575 or the "Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act" ("SHIELD Act"), New York continues a growing trend of regulators and lawmakers to increase consumer privacy and data security protections.
On March 27, 2019, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (GMI) proposed a new bill (the "Draft Bill") for a so-called IT Security Act 2.0 (IT-SiG 2.0). In an effort to take a front-runner role in Europe, Germany has enacted a comprehensive IT security law in 2015.
Current antitrust focus on technology platforms should take into account recent Supreme Court decisions in Pepper and American Express
Technology products are increasingly characterized by their ability to facilitate interconnectedness. More and more, tech innovators find themselves subject to increasing scrutiny under global competition laws when they succeed.
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement does not "deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark." This holding resolves a longstanding circuit split in the Federal Courts of Appeal about the effects of bankruptcy on trademark licenses.
On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, in an antitrust decision significant to licensing standard-essential patents (SEPs) under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions that clarify when copyright owners can sue for infringement and what costs they can recover from infringers. In Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Court held that a copyright owner may file an infringement complaint when the U.S. Copyright Office registers a copyright. In Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the Court held that that courts cannot make unconstrained cost awards to prevailing parties in copyright cases.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules: "Aggrieved" Person Does Not Require Separate, "Actual" Injury for Biometric Information Privacy Act Claim
On January 25, 2019, the Supreme Court of Illinois held in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. that an "aggrieved" person entitled to seek damages and injunctive relief under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), need not allege actual or separate injury beyond a violation of the individual's rights under BIPA. BIPA, an Illinois state law, is currently the only biometric privacy law that provides the opportunity for a private individual to bring an action in court. This holding overturns a lower appellate court decision, and aligns with recent holdings in the Northern District of California.
Tech companies of U.S. origin tend to have compliance programs focused on U.S. laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") and relevant tax and labor laws.
On October 18, 2018, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC" or the "Commission") announced its launch of a new "strategic hub for innovation and financial technology" the Commission is calling FinHub.
The recently passed California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the "CCPA") is set to create significant compliance burdens for most businesses that collect personal information about California residents ("consumers").
An early challenge to patent eligibility is a useful tool for any alleged infringer. Because of this, most alleged patent infringers, especially in software cases, begin their defense by considering whether the asserted patent satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted by the Supreme Court's decisions in Mayo and Alice. In a three-year period, between 2014 and 2017, District Courts evaluated patent eligibility in more than 400 opinions and, in many cases, determined ineligibility as a matter of law.
The Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 2710) ('VPPA') regulates the disclosure of information about consumers’ consumption of video content, imposing prescriptive requirements to obtain consumers’ consent to such disclosure.
• European Fintech M&A: Key Issues for Strategic Investors
• Vendor Risk Management as Applied to Fintech Contracts
• Fintech: Cybersecurity Risk Management for Financial Institutions and Technology Vendors
• The Role of Regulation in Financial Innovation: Does Fintech Need Regulation to Flourish?
• PSD2 – the EU's Regulatory Response to Innovation in the Payments Sector
• In re Micron Tech –Waiver and Improper Venue Challenges Post-TC Heartland
• Federal Circuit Weighs In On Limiting Effect of Preambles
• Draft Fintech Law bill introduced in Mexico
• Employee monitoring – avoiding pitfalls in a changing landscape
• eSports coming to the fore for policymakers in Europe
• Seeking consent under the General Data Protection Regulation
• Blockchain's Steady March to Legitimacy
• Compliance Deadline Looms on State Cybersecurity Regulation
• Police Body Worn Cameras: What Prosecutors Need to Know
• Germany Permits Automated Vehicles
• Innovation drives dealmaking: Outlook for M&A in Israel
• Car Sharing Act - New Benefits for Car Sharing Offerings in Germany
• Supreme Court's Lexmark Decision Exhausts Patents
• Officer and director checklist: Complying with the global reach of the New York Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Regulation
• EU regulators welcome stricter rules on cookies and direct marketing
• Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield: Key Similarities, Key Distinctions with the EU-U.S. Approach
• Privacy Shield: Recent Developments
• The dangers of direct marketing: Seeking consent or asking for trouble?
• Subject Access Requests: "not an obligation to leave no stone unturned"
• Defamation and data protection claims can be brought in parallel
• NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulations Compliance Guide: Applicability, Exemptions and Penalties
• NYS Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Regulation Goes Live: Now What?
• Privileged information is generally safe from Subject Access Requests
• Data Privacy in a Time of Reaction: "Big Data" versus "The People"
• IP addresses and personal data: Did CJEU ask the right questions?
• New EU Guidelines on Data Protection Officers
• Investigatory Powers Act 2016 cast into doubt by new EU ruling
• Further Challenges to EU-US Privacy Shield and EU Data Exports
• Investigatory Powers Act 2016 becomes law
• New DMCA Exemption Allows Consumers to Hack Their Own Vehicles
• Cybersecurity Guidelines for Vehicles
• Businesses can refuse Subject Access Requests made for the dominant purpose of litigation
• UK to implement GDPR regardless of Brexit
• Disclosing personal data – new protections for regulated sector firms?
• FCC Adopts Privacy Regulations for Broadband Internet Service Providers
• EU-US Privacy Shield challenged
• Court confirms that IP addresses are personal data in some cases
• UK ICO recommends personal liability of directors for breaches of data protection law
• Electronic Frontier Foundation brings suit over anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA
• New York's New Cybersecurity Rules: What Is Required?
• UK ICO issues largest ever fine for a data breach
• Accelerating the autonomous vehicle revolution
• The European Digital Single Market Strategy and Related Copyright Law Implications: The Status Quo
• New York Regulators Propose Stricter Cybersecurity Rules
• EU: Injunctions against intermediaries available also in the offline world
• EU-US Privacy Shield: How to Certify
• Federal Circuit Expanding Interpretation of Step Two of the Test for Patent Eligibility
• European Court of Justice Strengthens Rights of Authors, Performers and Phonogram Producers
• Unlocking the EU General Data Protection Regulation
• EU-US Privacy Shield approved
• Japan Patent Act Amendment: How to Compensate Inventors Now?
• Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Patent Eligibility Determination
• US Supreme Court affirms Federal Circuit on IPR Claim Construction Standard and that IPR Institution Decisions are Final and Non-appealable
• Online Traders: New Obligation in EU for Provision of Link to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Platform
• New threats to transatlantic data flows as Model Clauses come under fire
• New Players – Old Rules? The Current Debate on the Regulation of OTT Services in the EU and Germany
• Car Wars: The Car of the Future—Legal Aspects in a Connected World
• Strict and far-reaching new EU data protection regime comes into force
• FCC Proposes Formal Privacy Regulations for Broadband ISPs
• IP addresses may be subject to EU data protection laws
• Defend Trade Secrets Act: A New Era in Intellectual Property Protection
• GDPR published – Enforcement begins on 25 May 2018
• Employers vicariously liable for data breaches caused by rogue employees
• English court compels investigators to disclose information on data protection grounds
• UK 'regulatory sandbox' to foster fintech innovation
• Significant concerns from EU Data Protection Authorities may delay the EU-US Privacy Shield
• European Parliament approves new EU data protection law
• TC Heartland Challenges the Status Quo on Patent Venue
• Timeline for new EU-US data transfer mechanism becomes clearer
• NHTSA Reflects Willingness of US Regulatory Authorities to Embrace Autonomous Vehicles
• No consensus on Privacy Shield following debate on adequacy
• France anticipating the GDPR
• FTC Settles with Data Brokers in Sale of Consumer Data Used for Illicit Purposes
• New deal for transferring personal data from the EU to the US moves a step closer
• Bărbulescu v. Romania clarifies an employers' rights to monitor the contents of their employees' private electronic communications
• EU Regulatory Agendas: EDPS Priorities 2016 and Article 29 Working Party Work Programme 2016 – 2018
• New restrictions on disclosures of personal data to non-EU courts will not apply in the UK
• New WP29 Opinion on the application of EU data protection law to non-EU businesses
• Safe Harbor is dead, long live Safe Harbor!
• International Data Privacy: How to Navigate the Challenges
• Texas Takes a Stance Against Patent Trolls
• FTC and Wyndham Settle Suit Regarding Wyndham's Alleged Cybersecurity Failures
• New EU Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets to Come
• UK and EU Law Enforcement Investigatory and Data Sharing Powers: Developments and International Impact
• Introduction of new EU General Data Protection Regulation: final stages
• EU-wide cybersecurity rules nearing final agreement
• The self-driving car – a new legal frontier?
• ITC Proposed Amendments to Section 337 Rules
• Update 'EU-US Safe Harbor': Statement from the Article 29 Working Party
• European Court of Justice invalidates 'EU- US Safe Harbor' pact
• Trade Secrets Protection Bill Pending Before the Senate and Judiciary Committee
• Transfer of Personal Data Under Japan's Amended Personal Information Protection Act
• Court Invalidates Patent Claims After Refusing to Correct Alleged "Typos"
• New French Act on Intelligence Services: Impacts on Technical Operators
• Telemedicine or just a gadget for fitness addicts? Mobile Health Apps and the law
• Europe's Highest Court Recently Delivered a Judgment Imposing Affirmative Duties on SEP Holders
• Germany rolls out IT Security Act
• Mobile health apps: Are they a regulated medical device?
• Disparaging Trademarks and the Constitutionality of Refusing Registration Under the Lanham Act
• Rejection of Oracle's claims for copyright infringement against one of its users and condemnation of the practice of aggressive audits
• After Sales-Service: Don't Be Misled! — European Court of Justice Rules: Erroneous Information Provided by an Undertaking to a Consumer in the Context of After-Sales Service Is a Misleading Commercial Practice
• A significant milestone in the path towards the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation
• House Committee Advances Patent Reforms Aimed to Curb Patent Litigation Abuses
• Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity No Longer a Shield for Induced Infringement Claims
• Free Wi-Fi: German Court Seeks Clarification in Luxembourg
• Copyright levies on memory cards for mobile phones: another landmark decision from the CJEU (Case C-463/12)
• House Passes Cyber Sharing Bills and Congress is Focusing on Data Protection
• Council of Europe: Recommendation on the Processing of Personal Data in the Context of Employment
• IBM sentenced to pay 6.5 million as contractual damages
• Update: Germany's Draft Bill on IT Security
• White House Re-Introduces Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act
• The Supreme Court's New Standard of Appellate Review for Claim Construction
• The case law of the German courts of lower instance for patent law and utility model law since the year 2013
• President Obama Issues Executive Order on Cybersecurity Information Sharing
• UPDATE: German Government Proposes New Law Entitling Consumer Protection Organizations to Enforce Data Protection Law
• Developments in Privacy and Cybersecurity Legislation
• EU Data Protection – Proposal on Co-Operation Procedure to Harmonize Common Opinions on Contractual Clauses
• SDNY Clarifies Scope of Contractual Exclusions of Consequential Damages Under New York Law
• The Use of First and Last Names as Meta Tags is not Subject to the French Data Protection Act
• Are Dynamic IP Addresses "Personal Data"? German Federal Court of Justice seeks advice from the European Court of Justice
• California Passes New Data Protection Laws, Effective January 1, 2015
• AIPPI's resolution on "IP Licensing and Insolvency": Will this re-ignite legislative initiatives in Germany?
• Align by Design: Global Privacy Authorities Weigh in on the Internet of Things
• California Passes Student Data Privacy Law
• Federal Court Rules Business Method Patent Invalid Post-Alice
• Recent Amendments to the Procedure of Personal Data Processing in Russia
• Adoption of a new European legal framework applicable to cross-border electronic identification and e-signatures
• Massive Online Security Breach – Are You Reactive or Proactive?
• The revised PSI Directive – European Commission publishes guidelines on re-use of public sector information
• Germany's Draft Bill on IT Security
• UPDATE: Germany to Tighten Data Protection Laws: Consumer Protection Associations and Trade Associations shall be Granted Right to take Businesses to Court
• Supreme Court Rules Abstract Ideas Implemented on Computer Not Patent-Eligible
• New York AG Reports that Data Breaches Cost New York Businesses over $1B Last Year
• European Commission's Actions to Better Protect and Enforce Intellectual Property Rights
• Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Aereo and the Public Performance Right
• German Federal Court of Justice Decides on Deletion of Unused Domains and Typosquatting
• Fees for Recording IP Security Agreements with the USPTO and USCO
• California Attorney General Issues Privacy Policy Guide
• How does French case law deal with bundled software?
• California AG Provides Important Guidance on Do-Not-Track Legislation and Disclosures
• Copyright Holders Cannot Prevent Links to Freely-Available Content from Being Posted Online
• Second Circuit Adopts Plaintiff-Friendly "Discovery Rule" for Copyright Infringement Claims
• EU Data Protection – Draft Ad hoc contractual clauses "EU data processor to non-EU sub-processor"
• New Bill Would Create a Private Right of Action for Targets of Trade Secret Misappropriation under Federal Law
• FCC Warns ISPs May be Regulated as Utilities
• Biotronik A.G. v. Conor Medsystems: Be Sure to Expressly Exclude Lost Profits in Drafting New York Law Contracts
• Supreme Court Issues Two "High-Octane" Decisions to Address Abusive Patent Litigation Practices
• 3D Printing—implications on Intellectual Property Rights ("IP rights")
• In for a Penny, in for a Pound
• Germany's Draft Bill on Combating Late Payment in Commercial Transactions: Potential Consequences for Businesses on Both the Legal and Operational Level
• EU High Court Strikes Down Data Retention Law
• Cloud Services and Export Control: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You
• Anti-Patent Troll Legislation: What is Proposed and What it Could Mean
• CNIL Expanded Investigative Powers
• Intent-to-Use Trademark Applications and Security Agreements
• The Garcia v. Google Controversy and What It Means for Content Owners and Users
• Germany to Tighten Data Protection Laws: Consumer Protection Associations shall be Granted Right to take Businesses to Court
• Intellectual Property Infringement on the Internet: What Court to Call?
• California's Shine the Light Law: A Heightened Pleading Requirement
• NIST Issues Cybersecurity Framework
• How to Secure Information Systems: The Growing Complexity of the Legal Landscape
• Do Not Forget to Lock the Backdoor: Adopting a Holistic Approach to Cybersecurity
• Study of the European Parliament on the Protection of Creator's Rights in a Changing Environment
• Old Law, New Fit: Evergreen Notice Requirements for IP Service Agreements
• Know Your Subcontractors: Recent FTC Settlement Highlights the Importance of Validating Subcontractor Data Protection Practices
• US Supreme Court to Review Indefiniteness Standard under Section 112 of the Patent Act
• FTC Settles U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor Complaints Against Twelve Companies
• EU Copyright Rules – Changes on the horizon?
• Trademark Infringement by Use of AdWords? Legal Risks by Using AdWords Despite European Court of Justice (ECJ) Rulings
• Distributing Earnings Call Information to the Public Is Fair Use
• The Proposed Directive on Trade Secrets in the EU
• The Case Law of the German Courts of Instance (Instanzgerichte) for Patent Law and Utility Patent Law Since the Year 2011
• Addition of "No-Charge" Limitation During Prosecution Costs Inventor His Patent
• French Courts Ordered to Block and Delist 16 Streaming Websites
• Federal Judge Rules NSA Data Collection Program Is Likely Unconstitutional
• Major Changes to Defamation Law in the UK to Take Effect 1 January 2014
• "Perfecting" Security Interests in United States Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
• Hacking Back: For Now, Be Vigilant Rather Than a Vigilante
• Prospects on Germany's Digital Landscape in the Next Four Years: What Does the Coalition Agreement Say on Technology?
• Big Data: The Big Picture
• Changes in Consumer Law for Distance Contracts in the EU
• E-Commerce: Consider the Enhanced Consumer Protection Clauses
• Software License Audits – How to prepare, how to react
• FTC Denies Application for Proposed Social Network-Based COPPA Consent Verification
• In Sourcing and Licensing Agreements Governed by New York Law, Think Twice About a Gross Negligence Carve-out to a Limitation on Liability
• The Landgericht Düsseldorf’s (Düsseldorf District Court) decision to refer "LTE standard"
• Securing Patent Value for Israeli Medical Technology Companies
• CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. Further Muddies §101 Patent Eligibility
• Federal Legislation Introduced Regarding Mobile Application Privacy
• State court ruling creates new uncertainty for DMCA safe harbors
• ECJ dismisses Spanish and Italian challenge to EU-wide unitary patent system, but obstacles remain
• The Trademark Clearinghouse: What You Need to Know
• Federal Circuit Announces Review of Appellate Standard for Claim Construction
• Supreme Court Interprets Copyright "First Sale" Doctrine
• Congress Takes Action to Allow Unlocking of Mobile Phones
• FTC Announces Settlement with Social Networking App and Issues Staff Report Regarding Mobile Device Privacy Disclosures
• President Obama Issues New Executive Order on Improving Cybersecurity
• New HIPAA Rule Imposes Data Security and Privacy Obligations Directly Upon Vendors and Contractors of Covered Entities
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Announces First HIPAA Breach Settlement Involving Fewer than 500 Patients
• Amendments to the Economic Espionage Act Broaden Trade Secret Protection
• FTC Amends COPPA Rule and Previews Future Enforcement Policies