Articles Posted in Business Law

Published on: | by

If you have ever been involved in a federal civil lawsuit, you may be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  The FRCP are a set of rules that regulate federal civil lawsuits. The rules address issues from court and party obligations to enforcement of remedies. The FRCP was first adopted by order of the Supreme Court in 1937 and placed into effect in 1938.

On December 1, 2015, these rules were amended. Many of the changes affect electronic discovery (e-discovery). Prior to the internet age, discovery and discoverable evidence were primarily based upon paper transactions.  With the rapid rise of the web, many started to turn to electronic storage of information.  As the data and information-storage landscapes began to change, the rules had to change.

The amendments brought changes to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, and 55.  The amendments also brought on the abrogation of Rule 85 and the Appendix of Forms. The changes that affect e-discovery are as follows:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The internet has become the home to many advances in the world. With one click of a button, a person can communicate with another person located on the other side of the world. With another click of a button, a person can buy a shirt and have it delivered right to his/her doorstep in a matter of days. Not only has the internet made things more convenient, it has become a tool in starting a business. Besides finding a tutorial to create a website, inventors can now fund their projects to bring their ideas to reality through crowdfunding. The inventor simply places his idea on a crowdfunding website, e.g., Kickstarter or Indiegogo, and sends the link to a large group. Depending on the invention’s popularity, the entrepreneur can raise a high amount of money with little effort.

Crowdfunding is starting to become a viable source of funding for startups. According to Forbes, crowdfunding is predicted to overcome venture capitalists next year.  Although, crowdfunding has made it easier to create a business, it does not come without legal problems. One of the biggest issues is intellectual property. From patent trolls, to patent infringement, crowdfunding websites have found themselves under attack by businesses.

In late 2012, 3D Systems brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Formlabs.  3D Systems alleged both direct and indirect patent infringement for its three-dimensional printing technology. This lawsuit came after Formlabs collected over $2 million from its crowdfunding campaign to put its three-dimensional printer into production. Formlabs was planning on selling the printer for less than 3D Systems’ printer, leading to the filing of the complaint. No answer was ever filed in the original suit, but a series of time extensions indicated that the companies were looking for a settlement. In late 2013, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed and a settlement looked imminent.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

ZeniMax Media, Inc. (“ZeniMax”) is a company that develops and publishes video games. These games include Fallout and Elder Scrolls. ZeniMax publishes the video games through its subsidiaries and has found widespread success in the gaming market. With that widespread success, ZeniMax was able to allocate funds for the development of virtual reality gaming.

In April 2012, a ZeniMax employee started communicating with Palmer Luckey. At the time, Luckey was a college student working on a virtual reality headset prototype named Rift. The ZeniMax employee took interest in Luckey’s creation and offered some help in its development. Luckey then sent the ZeniMax employee a copy of his prototype where the employee and other ZeniMax personnel added their own improvements. After their improvements, ZeniMax entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Luckey to share the enhancements made on the prototype, including its use in a game ZeniMax developed.

After the prototype became a working model, ZeniMax performed demonstrations at the Electronic Entertainment Exposition. The demonstrations were only done by appointment. After adding his own modifications and merely days after the exposition, Luckey started to commercialize the headset under a newly-formed company called Oculus VR.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On October 30, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted rules allowing the use of crowdfunding by companies to offer and sell securities. Crowdfunding is the raising of money in cyberspace through portals, i.e., specialized websites like Gofundme, Indiegogo, Kickstarter. By using these portals, individuals or businesses can engage in fundraising in order to promote ideas to a large group of potential investors.  Crowdfunding has become a handy tool in new projects since it is another method for a small business to raise capital.  The SEC is seeking to regulate these practices and to protect investors since startups and entrepreneurs can raise capital through this revolutionary method.

For example, Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (“JOBS”) Act created an exemption in the securities laws to allow crowdfunding to be used for offering and selling securities. The exemption called for the final rules, Regulation Crowdfunding, to administer such offerings and sales. The rules allow for crowdfunding securities transactions within certain limits. The limits include the amount that could be raised through crowdfunding, requirement of disclosure of certain information to investors, and creation of a regulatory framework for the funding portals, which facilitate the transactions.

In essence, some of the rules are:

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Trade secrets are vital to a business’s growth and development.  From a practical standpoint, the advantage a business may have vanishes once the trade secret is publicly known. As a result, businesses have employed various methods to prevent the leaking of trade secrets. From confidentiality agreements to encryption, a smart business should attempt to prevent the risks. However, these efforts may not be enough, calling for the need of regulation. In general, the applicable regulations primarily clarify the definitions, parameters, and remedies for trade secret theft.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) has been adopted in forty-seven states and the District of Columbia. It defines a trade secret as information that derives economic value from its secrecy and is subject to reasonable effort to maintain its secrecy.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

What are trade secrets?

In general, the definition of a trade secret varies from state to state. Essentially, it means any confidential information you would not want your competitors to know about. This could be anything from customer lists, marketing plans, to business models. Although, this definition is broad, it is important to look at the exact definition of what is a trade secret according to the applicable jurisdiction. In California, a trade secret is defined as information that takes independent economic value from its confidential nature subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Here, California’s definition of a trade secret places a focus on economic impact. This differs from states such as New York where the law simply defines a trade secret as information that would give an advantage over a competitor. See Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407 (1993). In comparison, New York has a broader definition than California and covers any non-economic related trade secrets.

Why is protection necessary?

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down its decision in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation.  This lawsuit was against the defendant and its subsidiaries for their failure to implement proper cybersecurity measures and protect consumers’ personal information against hackers.  The FTC alleged that defendants did not use encryption, firewalls, and other commercially reasonable methods for protecting personal information.

What was the basis of the lawsuit?

In general, the FTC has the responsibility to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices. These illegal practices could range from false advertising to antitrust issues. The FTC has started to prosecute companies with inadequate cybersecurity to protect consumer data. The companies that made false statements about their level of security in their terms of service also had lawsuits filed against them.  In this case, between 2008 and 2009, hackers breached Wyndham Worldwide Corporation’s network and computer systems three separate times. One incident occurred in 2008 and two occurred in 2009.   The hackers were allegedly able to breach the network due to the use of weak and obvious passwords, lack of response to the first incident, and inadequate monitoring systems.  In one of the instances, it took approximately two months for Wyndham Worldwide Corporation to discover its systems had been accessed without authorization. The hackers successfully accessed personal information of approximately 619,000 consumers and managed to cause $10.6 million in fraudulent charges. Therefore, on June 26, 2012, the FTC brought the lawsuit against defendants.  Their motion to dismiss was denied by the district court and their appeal was heard on two issues in order to determine whether there was a valid claim.  The issues that were raised included: (1) whether the FTC had authority to regulate cybersecurity under 15 U.S.C. § 45; and (2) if so, whether defendants received fair notice that their cybersecurity practices were inadequate under the guidelines.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In general, intellectual property, includes, copyright, trademarks, and patents (collectively “IP”).  According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols, names and images used in commerce. Now, when it comes to the use of intellectual property, what is considered fair use?

What is fair use and how does it affect intellectual property right?

There are multiple ways to protect or claim your intellectual property. When an individual believes that its intellectual property has been misappropriated (i.e., taken without consent), it has the right to demand that it be removed or notify the hosting organization about the infringement, so that they can remove it. The services of a lawyer should be obtained if any of these steps fail. However, before any of these steps are taken, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is codified under 17 U.S.C. section 512, recommends that the individual making the claim considers whether the use of their intellectual property is fair use. Fair use is defined under 17 U.S.C. § 107, where it states that copyrighted material may be used so long as it is for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, . . . scholarship, or research” and it will not be considered an infringement of the copyright. The following factors are evaluated to determine fair use: (1) purpose and character of use; (2) nature or type of work used; (3) amount of the work used; and (4) effect using the copyrighted work will have on its use for the author or creator. When deciding whether to demand removal, redaction, or whether to pursue a legal case alleging misappropriation, individuals should be aware of their legal rights and relevant factors.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

This year saw the data breaches of Sony Pictures, Ashley Madison, and Experian Credit Bureau. The increasing commonality of data breaches has prompted the federal and state legislatures to review their data breach notification laws.

What is a data breach?

A data breach occurs when an unauthorized user (i.e., hacker) accesses sensitive personal identifiable information. The hacker then copies the confidential information and uses it as he or she sees fit.  Often times, the personally identifiable information is used to commit identity theft and fraud.  This information can include, names, telephone numbers, email addresses, credit card numbers, or social security numbers. The target of these breaches can be businesses, financial institutions, and health care institutions.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The case of Eagle v. Morgan is about an employer’s access to employee’s social media account. This case highlights the importance of companies having social media policies to address the ownership of social media accounts during and after employment.

What is the case about and how does it affect your rights?

In Eagle v. Morgan, the plaintiff (i.e., Linda Eagle) had founded the company Edcomm, Inc. (“Edcomm”) and remained an employee when she sold her shares to Sawabeh Information Services Company (“SISCOM”). While employed at the company as CEO, Eagle’s coworker recommended creating a LinkedIn account for marketing purposes. Although, the business would occasionally become involved in the social media account’s content, and Eagle used her company email address, however, she was individually bound by the User Agreement and had made connections through her own efforts. Edcomm did not require its employees to have social media accounts and had only limited guidelines in place regarding employee use of LinkedIn. When Linda Eagle’s employment was terminated, the question of who owned the social media account became an issue. Edcomm changed Linda Eagle’s password by using her former company email address and replaced her name with that of her new replacement, i.e., Sandy Morgan.  Linda Eagle sued Edcomm and multiple defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She claimed that this was an infringement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Lanham Act, as well state laws against invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity, conversion, civil conspiracy, civil aiding and abetting, tortious interference with contract, unauthorized use of name in violation of Pa. C.S. § 8316, misappropriation of publicity, and identity theft under Pa. C.S. § 8316.

Continue Reading ›