Articles Posted in Government

Published on: | by

Patent law reform has recently moved to the forefront of the federal legislation calendar as the country calls on Congress to protect inventors and consumers from intellectual property trolls (“IP trolls”). IP trolls may also be known as patent assertion entities. These IP trolls include individuals or entities that do not necessarily generate innovations themselves, but rather buy and hold patents, copyrights, or trademarks. Then, the IP trolls instigate infringement litigation against parties who use the otherwise idle intellectual property. Are you in litigation against an IP troll for alleged infringement? Do you have a non-active patent that may interest IP trolls? At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, an attorney with experience and knowledge in intellectual property law and infringement litigation can help you understand your legal rights and remedies.

What Are the Negative Effects of Intellectual Property Trolls?

IP trolls target idle intellectual property and file lawsuits, which the majority of consumers find to be frivolous and unjustified (i.e. lacking any merit or good-faith cause to sue). Recently, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (“AIA”) into law in an effort to protect against such frivolous litigation. The AIA is the first attempt by the federal government to curtail intellectual property claims by such IP trolls. For example, the AIA requires that IP trolls file individual actions for infringement, rather than a single action against multiple defendants. This requirement will substantially increase the cost of litigation for IP trolls, and, perhaps hinder them entirely. Indeed, some cases may reach extremely high litigation costs. For example, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, a Texas-based patent-licensing company, recently sued consumers for scanning any document to send by email. MPHJ sent consumers letters demanding $1,200 to cover the cost of wrongfully scanning documents, which they claim to be a patented process calling for royalties (i.e., payments to the patent holder for using the patented technology). Otherwise, MPHJ threatened the consumers with litigation. A complaint filed in a Vermont state court aims to protect consumers from such patent troll litigation in the first lawsuit of this kind.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In April 2012, President Obama and the United States Congress signed the JOBS Act into law. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (“JOBS”) Act goes a long way towards accelerating and promoting crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is the practice of raising capital for a project or business by seeking small amounts of money from several individuals or small groups. Do you operate a small business? Are you looking for new ways to gather revenue for your growth and development? Are you an individual investor looking for your next investment project? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then the 2012 JOBS Act allows you to redefine your approach to future investments and business.

How Will the JOBS Act Change How Small Businesses Operate?

Since the JOBS Act passed into law, crowdfunding has increased through platforms such as Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and Fundable. These platforms have helped launch all sorts of small businesses, including startup companies, film projects, music projects, and non-profit organizations. Crowdfunding has essentially redefined traditional notions of how small businesses gather funds to support projects and growth. As such, in order to take advantage of this new opportunity, small businesses must learn to market their operations and projects to the masses. Reaching a wide array of people helps these businesses appeal to the individual investors who participate in crowdfunded business. Successful crowdfunding requires a small business to establish and maintain supporters at all stages of a project or throughout the course of a company.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The central provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) went into effect in March 2013, revolutionizing the United States patent system. Traditionally, the United States had maintained a “first-to-invent” patent system, which awarded patent rights to the first inventor who created a unique invention. However, as the AIA went into effect, not only did the statute change the effects of U.S. patent law, but it also affected how inventors will make the decision of whether to file patents.

How Does the AIA Change the U.S. Patent System?

Before this new provision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) awarded patents to the individual or entity that invented first, rather than the individual or entity that filed an application for a patent first. Now, an inventor could lose patent rights to another inventor who potentially created the same invention later in time, but managed to file a patent application for the same invention sooner. Essentially, regardless of who conceptualized an invention first, the first to submit a good-faith patent application secures patent rights.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”), or ObamaCare, as it is more commonly known, into law on March 23, 2010. The Act intends to decrease the number of Americans who do not have medical insurance. Additionally, the Act aims to decrease the overall cost of healthcare in the nation. One of the primary provisions of the Act requires employers that have at least 50 full-time employees to provide healthcare benefits for their employees. If such employers fail to provide benefits adequate under government standards, the employers will have to pay a fine. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of ObamaCare, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority to require businesses to provide health care. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Although, ObamaCare will not go into effect until 2014, it is already starting to have an effect on small businesses in America. Indeed, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service released regulations, in December of 2012, that require companies that average 50 or more full-time employees to provide healthcare or pay a fine now.

The way small businesses structure in 2013 could determine their status under ObamaCare next year. Companies have considered limiting growth to eliminate the need for additional employees. Accordingly, employers are choosing to outsource work instead of hiring full-time employees in order to avoid the cost of providing government-approved health care. Also, employers are hiring employees only on a part-time basis to avoid meeting the standard under ObamaCare.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The news outlets have been reporting that the Chinese have allegedly been hacking into American infrastructures. Assuming this report is accurate, the United States is not equipped to handle the consequences of such an attack. These hackers would possess the power to disable the critical infrastructure in this country, eliminating electricity, gas, water, and all major transit systems. Indeed, earlier this year, both The New York Times and The Wall Street reported that hackers had infiltrated their systems and stolen confidential employee information. The New York Times has further reported that it has been experiencing constant attacks from the Chinese in an attempt to control information that pertains to China. The Ministry of National Defense in China denies any such cyberattack on The New York Times. In light of these recent developments, it has become increasingly important for individuals and businesses to take steps to ensure their cyber protection. By serving California and Washington D.C., the skilled attorneys at the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh successfully work on legal matters pertaining to cybersecurity and Internet law.

The former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has described the scene that will unfold after such an attack as a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” Indeed, these hackers could possess software with the capacity to destroy infrastructure hardware. Such an attack would spread chaos throughout the country for months while the government works to restore its vital systems. Pointing to the failed Cybersecurity Act of 2012, Panetta has called upon the private citizens and businesses to act to secure their cybersecurity. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, confirmed that this was a crisis that required global attention.

These instances of “cyberterrorism” threaten to cause damage far beyond the destruction of 9/11. Mandiant, a cyber-security company based in the United States, traces these cyber-attacks to the People’s Liberation Army, the Chinese military. The efforts in America to make sense of these attacks have not led to any definitive answers. The dangers of cyber-attacks are apparent in the recent attack on Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company. The attack consisted of a virus, which destroyed 30,000 Aramco computers, and replaced essential files within the system with an image of an American flag burning. There was also a reported cyber-attack on Telvent (now known as Schneider Electric), an international corporation that provides companies with the network and connections to remotely control power grids, oil pipelines, and gas pipelines. It remains unclear whether the hacking efforts are meant to steal confidential information, or whether the hacking is part of a larger scheme to derail vital American infrastructures. Indeed, the threat may not be limited to the Chinese, but rather part of a greater effort to launch an attack against American cybersecurity. This certainly poses a threat not only for national security, but also for individual cyber-security involving consumers and businesses that compose and participate in the crucial business and technology infrastructures.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In light of recent news that America’s cyber-network is vulnerable to outside attack, President Obama signed an Executive Order to improve cyber-security for the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” According to the Order, “critical infrastructure” applies to the vital physical and virtual systems in the United States that are essential to the country’s economic security, public health, and safety. This definition is in line with the definition of “critical infrastructure” in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which the federal government failed to pass.

The Executive Order is meant to promote greater information sharing among members of the same network. This will ensure that all network providers are adequately aware of potential threats to the system in time to plan and implement an effective response. Accordingly, American companies now bear the responsibility of evaluating whether “critical infrastructure” applies to their operations. Alternatively, the Executive Order may also apply to companies that provide goods or services to other companies that the Executive Order implicates. In this case, the Executive Order would also apply to the companies that provide the goods or services. These companies would then bear the same responsibility to abide by the Executive Order and participate in the information-sharing network.

The Executive Order also requires various federal agencies to participate in this network. The Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of National Intelligence, among others, are responsible for participating to create an information-sharing network. Such a network will make it easier to detect and ward off cyber-threats. Additionally, the information-sharing network will allow the participating agencies to quickly notify the President of any legislation that is necessary to further protect the nation’s cyber-network. Furthermore, a working and productive network will incentivize other agencies and companies to join the network. Increased participants will improve the breadth of the network, work to expand the reach of the network, and add to the information that is available within the network.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

As part of a recent move to revise its body of business law, the Council of Washington D.C. has adopted an amended Title 29 of the District of Columbia Code on Business Organizations. Chapter 4 applies specifically to rules pertaining to Nonprofit Organizations. Also known as the Nonprofit Corporation Act of 2010 (the “Act”), as of January 2012, chapter 4 has applied to all non-profit corporations that existed after 1962. Nonprofit corporations that existed prior to 1962 will have until January 2014 to give notice waiving application of the Act to their operations. If pre-1962 corporations fail to file such notice by January 2014, the Act will apply to their operations.

A nonprofit organization’s Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may replace most of the provisions of the Act. The Articles of Incorporation or bylaws serve as a set of specific laws that govern the operations and structure of each individual corporation. The revised Act may still provide new benefits for such companies. For instance, under section 29-102.11 of the Act, nonprofit corporations must now file their biennial reports by April 1st, not January 15th. In addition, according to section §29-401.03, nonprofit organizations must give notice in the form of a record. Under the Act, a “record” includes e-mails, taxes, and telegrams. However, a nonprofit corporation may include a provision in its Articles of Incorporation of bylaws, allowing for oral notice. The Act also allows nonprofit organizations to provide for electronic meetings– annual, regular, or special–under section 29-405.01-02. In the case of elections, section 29-405.28 now allows nonprofit corporations to appoint election inspectors to manage elections. When forming committees, the Act allows nonprofit organizations to only have a single member as the director of the committee. Furthermore, whereas nonprofit corporations’ directors held fiduciary duties towards the organization, including, but not necessarily limited to, duty of loyalty and duty of care under case law, now section 29-406.30-31 of the Act holds such duties. Finally, under section 29-406.70 of the Act, a transaction that bears the risk of a conflict of interest is not automatically voidable if the corporation has taken the steps to approve the transaction with shareholders. Additionally, a conflict of interest transaction may not necessarily be voidable if the corporation can demonstrate that the transaction was fair to the organization at the time that it was approved by the board of directors.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Published on: | by

Former CIA Director David Petraeus from his position after the FBI looked through Petraeus’ private Gmail account and discovered that he was having an extramarital affair. These events have brought to light the fragile state of individual privacy on the Internet, particularly in relation to individual email accounts.

According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”), which is current and applicable cyber law, the FBI has the authority to look through any email account simply by accessing the account through providers such as Yahoo or Gmail. Under the ECPA, law enforcement agencies do not need a search warrant to look through such accounts if the message is more than 180 days old.

In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”), under Title 50, sections 1801 et seq. of the United States Code, allows the government to monitor communications between foreign parties, without a search warrant. A 2008 amendment to FISA further allows the government to monitor communications between American parties if the government does not know of the parties’ exact locations or identities. A group of attorneys raised a constitutional challenge to this amendment, and the matter is now before the United States Supreme Court. The justices have focused on whether the amendment offers the government an inappropriate range of power, or whether the amendment simply expands the government’s resources to protect America.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

Facebook is struggling to decide how to handle its pictures. While consumer companies urge Facebook to profit from its face recognition technology, international regulators insist that user identities remain protected. According to a New York Times article entitled, Facebook Can ID Face, But Using Them Grows Tricky, Facebook agreed to delete user identification information, which the site gathers through facial recognition technology. The technology at issue is Facebook’s “tag suggestion” which automatically matches names with faces when a user uploads a photo. Facebook has deactivated this feature to make improvements that international regulators can approve.

Chris Hoofnalge, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, School of Law stated in the article that increasing developments in this field “directly affects civil liberties.” Although, the public is more likely to accept using identifying information from facial recognition technology for security purposes, Wall Street is now pressuring Facebook to utilize its users’ personal data for profit. Legislators, such as Senator Al Franken, have expressed concern over Facebook’s “database of face prints,” which Facebook has gathered “without the explicit consent of its users.” Franken urged Facebook to provide the same right of privacy to its American users as it does its European counterparts.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a guide, “Facing Facts Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies,” aimed at defining facial recognition technology and outlining authorized uses. In addition, earlier this year Google announced a new tool that would allow individuals to blur their faces in YouTube videos. This is one of the first steps to provide “visual anonymity” in cyberspace.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

We have submitted a petition to ask Congress to review and modify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to limit the protection granted to interactive online services, such as news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs. Also, Congress should set new policies and procedures for interactive online services to confirm the true identity of their users and members. This confirmation of a user’s or member’s true identity promotes protection against bogus statements made against innocent individuals and prevents the victimization of businesses.

This petition should be signed because consumers and businesses are facing various problems such as defamation, harassment, or retaliation by anonymous users on interactive online services without recourse and protection. Unfortunately, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants broad immunity to interactive online services. By doing so, such immunity tilts the scale of justice and creates an unreasonable result for innocent individuals who are being targeted by anonymous users and have no remedy for protection.

Please visit this link, review and sign it if you are willing to support our request for change in legislation.