Now more than ever, technology is influencing the way we do business, communicate, move through and around the world, access and manage our homes, receive and administer healthcare, make purchases, secure information, and protect our most valuable property. Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape across our internationally recognized corporate, finance, intellectual property, and litigation practices. MoFo Tech brings together our insights relating to fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and as-a-service technologies, driverless cars, drones, fintech, computer hardware and software, the Internet of Things, semiconductors, and telecommunications. The MoFo Tech blog offers real-time, in-depth analyses of the trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

testimage.jpg

MoFo Tech

Scott Llewellyn’s practice focuses on complex litigation in federal and state courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes. Over the past decade, he has worked on some of the most significant, high–profile IP cases involving technology for televisions, smartphones, and self–driving cars, relying on 40 years of experience with computer hardware and software. Scott also has significant experience with business divorce cases before courts and arbitrators, involving a mix of trade secret, patent, tort, and contract claims relating to technology development and implementation.Scott also has successfully tried general commercial arbitration and agency matters, briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court, and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver City Attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.Scott also has an active pro bono practice, having worked on a variety of criminal and immigration appeals, and having represented Colorado criminal defense and mental health organizations in high–profile suits against the state of Colorado for violations of the constitutional rights of defendants.At MoFo, Scott serves on the board of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation. In the broader legal community, he serves on the boards of the Colorado Lawyers Committee and Drop in the Bucket (a charity that builds wells and sanitation systems in sub–Saharan Africa).After law school, Scott clerked for the Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District of Wyoming, and the Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Ninth Circuit. He was also previously an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

llewellyn_scott_blog_150x150.png

llewellyn_scott_common_640x280.jpg

llewellyn_scott_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

llewellyn_scott_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

llewellyn_scott_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Scott Llewellyn’s practice involves complex litigation before state and federal courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes for high-tech companies, to which he brings more than 35 years of experience with computer hardware and software, in particular relating to the processing and transmission of audio, video, voice, and other types of data. Mr. Llewellyn has also tried commercial arbitration and agency matters; briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court; and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver city attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.

Scott F. Llewellyn

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

Mofo Tech testimage

Announcements

Welcome to the MoFo Tech Blog

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Government Contracts Insights Blog

Govcon

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

MoFo+ Together

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

MoFo Tech

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

MoFo Tech Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Telecommunications

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Cloud Services + SaaS

European Union

Financings

Fintech

Hardware

Intellectual Property

Internet of Things

Litigation

Mergers + Acquisitions

Privacy + Data Security

Regulatory

Software

Tech Talks

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Subscribe

More

AI Transparency in Healthcare: Navigating a Changing Regulatory Landscape

Recentive: Federal Circuit’s Patent-Eligibility Guideposts for Machine-Learning Inventions

Japan’s Approach to AI Regulation in 2025

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

AI Agent as a Service in Medtech - Key Considerations for Commercial Contracts

In an effort to harmonize online consumer protection laws and regulations across the European Union by the end of 2019, the Digital Single Market project has started fairly slowly. Which of the Commission’s goals has it managed to convert into actual legislation, when is the Commission expected to pass legislation related to the modernization of copyright law, and what can we expect the Commission to address next?In this video, Alistair Maughan, co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s global Technology Transactions Group and leader of the firm’s European Technology Team, answers these questions and more.<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JFErC81sNi8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" title="Ted Talks - MoFo Tech" title="iframe"></iframe></div>

Autodesk

HM Revenue and Customs

Home Office, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health

Intel

ITworx

lastminute.com

NYSE-listed health tech company

One of UK's largest public EV charging networks

Phoenix Group

Telenor

UK Border Agency

maughan_alistair_blog_150x150.png

maughan_alistair_common_640x280.jpg

maughan_alistair_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

maughan_alistair_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

maughan_alistair_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Alistair Maughan co-leads Morrison & Foerster's European Technology & Commercial Practice.

Alistair Maughan

Alistair advises on the deployment of new technology platforms involving, for example, the internet of things, AI and machine-learning, and blockchain and distributed ledger technology.

mofotechblog-software-600x295-tunnel.jpg

What Is The Digital Single Market?

Don’t Get Caught by the Phisherman’s Hook This Tax Season

507065943

In an effort to harmonize online consumer protection laws and regulations across the European Union by the end of 2019, the Digital Single Market project has st

What Is The Digital Single Market?

There is now wide legal consensus that organizations that seek to sell tokens for capital-raising purposes in the United States should register their tokens with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or rely on available registration exemptions. However, many token investors and other recipients of tokens do not realize that, to the extent a token is a security, any sale that the holder makes of the token (i.e., any “secondary sale”) must also be in compliance with similar securities laws and regulations, just as the initial, or “primary,” sale of the token to the holder must have been. In their article “Structuring Secondary Token Sales: How to Monetize Digital Tokens under U.S. Securities Laws,” Alfredo Silva and Dario de Martino of Morrison & Foerster LLP present key hurdles to consider when structuring secondary token sales in order to avoid legal repercussions.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/424dC2k12XUmwPZ0IBxwOv">article</a> at Bloomberg Law.

Marrone Bio Innovations' Acquisition by Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp

Temasek’s Joint Venture with Bayer

SoftBank Group and SoftBank Vision Fund’s Investment Transactions

Temasek's Investment in Verily Life Sciences and Agtech Space

Intel's Investment in Cloudera

Visa's Strategic Investments in the Fintech Space

Marrone Bio Innovations’ Public Offerings

Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc.’s Stock and Warrant Financings

Temasek's Investment in Coherus, Inc.

Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. IPO/Reverse Merger and Public Offerings

RH's Public Offerings

InvenSense's Public Offerings

At-the-Market Programs

Marrone Bio Innovation’s Acquisition of Pro Farm and Jet-Ag

SoftBank's Acquisition of Sprint

Novellus' Merger with Lam Research

Shutterfly's Acquisition of Tiny Prints

silva_alfredo_blog_150x150.png

silva_alfredo_common_640x280.jpg

silva_alfredo_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

silva_alfredo_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

silva_alfredo_social_600x600.jpg

Alfredo Silva is a partner in the Transactions Department, co-chair of the firm's Social Enterprise and Impact Investing Group, and a member of the ESG Strategy Committee.

Alfredo B. D. Silva

Alfredo Silva is co-chair of the firms Social Enterprise + Impact Investing practice and member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. He represents public and private companies and investors in a broad range of corporate and securities law matters, as well as nonprofit organizations on entity formation, fiduciary issues, and structuring.

01_12_mofotechblog_600x295_blockchain01.jpg

Structuring Secondary Token Sales: How to Monetize Digital Tokens Under U.S. Securities Laws

Do You Want to Launch an ICO? Please, Listen to the SEC

876844722

There is now wide legal consensus that organizations that seek to sell tokens for capital-raising purposes in the United States should register their tokens wit

Structuring Secondary Token Sales: How to Monetize Digital Tokens Under U.S. Securities Laws

The European Commission has stated that it wants to establish the EU as a leader in the AI industry in order to, among other things, discontinue non-EU companies’ dominance of the EU tech market. Nevertheless, the Commission’s goals for increasing the use of AI in the EU are vague, the Commission has failed to clarify how the EU should go about achieving tasks that are indispensable to the AI industry’s success, and a “European AI Alliance” intended to encourage relevant stakeholders to share best practices and carry out other activities related to the AI industry’s development isn’t scheduled to take place until July 2019.

Can the EU become a leader in AI Technology?

The European Commission has stated that it wants to establish the EU as a leader in the AI industry in order to, among other things, discontinue non-EU companie

Can the EU become a leader in AI Technology?

On 28 June 2018, the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published a letter to the CEOs of banks, insurance companies and designated investment firms to communicate the PRA’s expectations regarding firms’ exposure to crypto-assets. In particular, the letter flagged the risks associated with crypto-assets and each firm’s responsibility to comply with the PRA’s Fundamental Rules 3, 5 and 7.The letter highlighted several risk mitigation strategies and systems that the PRA considers necessary to protect against exposure to crypto-assets. The PRA also outlined their expectations with regard to classifications of crypto-assets and reminded firms to continue to update the PRA of any planned crypto-asset exposure or activity. Discussions around the prudential treatment of crypto-assets are currently ongoing among authorities (both nationally and internationally) and the PRA will communicate any supervisory or policy updates in due course.

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-bar-chart.jpg

UK PRA's 'Dear CEO' Letter on Exposure to Crypto-Assets

UK Regulations: Urgent Action Required from Loan-Based Crowdfunding Platforms

673266772

On 28 June 2018, the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation  Authority (PRA) published a letter to the CEOs of banks, insurance  companies and designated investme

UK PRA's 'Dear CEO' Letter on Exposure to Crypto-Assets

Just over a month after the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect, California passed its own sweeping privacy legislation, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.The Act stands to affect countless global companies doing business in California, many of which recently devoted extensive time and resources to GDPR compliance. These companies must now determine what additional steps are necessary to comply with the Act by the time it takes effect on January 1, 2020.Join Socially Aware contributors Christine Lyon and Julie O’Neill on Thursday, September 20, 2018, for a deep dive into the key similarities and differences between the GDPR and the Act, as well as practical steps companies can take to assess gaps and chart a path to compliance. The areas they expect to cover include:<ul><li>Notice requirements</li><li>Access and portability</li><li>Deletion</li><li>Opt-outs</li><li>Discrimination</li></ul>

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-computer-key.jpg

Privacy Across the Atlantic: Comparing the EU GDPR and California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 - A Morrison & Foerster Data Protection Webinar

Biometric Information as Personal Information In A Brave New World of Regulatory Compliance

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-computer-key

Just over a month after the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect, California passed its own sweeping privacy legislation, the California Con

Privacy Across the Atlantic: Comparing the EU GDPR and California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 - A Morrison & Foerster Data Protection Webinar

On 7 August, 2018, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it has, in collaboration with 11 other financial regulators and related organisations, including the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, created the Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN) to provide a more efficient way for innovative firms operating in multiple jurisdictions to interact with regulators. The GFIN encourages innovative financial services firms, financial services regulators, technology companies, technology providers, trade bodies, accelerators, consumer groups and other stakeholders to read and respond to the various questions it poses in the consultation document.

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-graph.jpg

Announcing the Global Financial Innovation Network

Why Should Your Startup Care About Intellectual Property?

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-graph

On 7 August, 2018, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it has, in collaboration with 11 other financial regulators and related organisatio

Announcing the Global Financial Innovation Network

Many states and localities are concerned that the proliferation of streaming services is shrinking tax revenues previously received from sales of traditional forms of entertainment.  Those concerns are not unfounded.  The rapid development of streaming services has drastically changed how people watch “television.”  It is now estimated that over 56 million U.S. adults either have cancelled or never subscribed to traditional cable or satellite television service, while the number of Americans who subscribe to Netflix now equals the number of Americans who have a traditional television service subscription.  Meanwhile, streaming music services now generate the majority of the industry’s revenue.Thus, it is not surprising that many jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches to subject sales of streaming services to sales taxes and excise taxes.  And now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no physical presence requirement for a state to impose a sales tax collection obligation on sellers, all companies offering streaming services should pay even closer attention to the state and local tax landscape—even if the streaming service is only a small part of a larger business.  Notably, in a state or locality that imposes sales taxes or excise taxes on streaming services, a company’s otherwise non-taxable services may become taxable if the company decides to include a streaming service as part of a bundled offering for a single price, even if the streaming service is not used or desired by a particular purchaser.Some jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, have passed legislation amending their sales tax laws to specifically tax streaming services.  However, similar legislative efforts have proven less successful in other jurisdictions.  For example, a proposal in Virginia to expand the state’s communications sales tax to streaming entertainment services was overwhelmingly rejected by a Virginia House of Delegates committee earlier this year.  Meanwhile, the general unpopularity of taxes on streaming television services has inspired legislative proposals to explicitly exclude such services from tax.Taxing authorities in other jurisdictions have attempted to apply existing sales tax and excise tax laws to reach streaming services by issuing guidance such as letter rulings and publications.  For example, in a 2018 Private Letter Ruling, the Texas Comptroller found that a streaming video service was subject to sales tax as a “cable television service.”  The Florida Department of Revenue has issued guidance stating that, while sales and rentals of streaming videos are not subject to sales tax, rentals of streaming videos are subject to the State’s communications services tax as a “video service.”  Even more confusing, the Florida guidance states that sales (as opposed to rentals) of streaming videos are not subject to Florida’s communications services tax because the sales would qualify as a nontaxable “information service.”  Localities are also attempting to tax streaming services, even when the state is not.  For example, although Illinois does not currently impose tax on streaming services, the City of Chicago’s Comptroller released guidance stating that the City’s excise tax on admission fees or other charges paid for the privilege to enter, witness, view, or participate in “amusements” applies to certain streaming services. Any company that offers streaming services should be aware of the taxing authority’s position in each jurisdiction where the company has customers, even if the company has no other “presence” in that jurisdiction.  Importantly, however, companies should also be aware that a taxing authority’s position is subject to challenge.  Judicial challenges of taxes on streaming services are ongoing in Chicago and Pennsylvania.  Notably, at least one state’s attempt to impose existing taxes on streaming services was rejected.  In Kentucky, a state circuit court overturned the Department of Revenue’s audit assessment that subjected a streaming service company’s revenues from Kentucky customers to the same excise taxes applicable to traditional pay television providers. If your company offers a streaming service, now is the time to closely examine your tax compliance efforts.  In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., which overruled over 50 years of precedent and found that the U.S. Constitution does not require a physical presence in a taxing state in order for the state to impose a sales and use tax collection obligation on an out-of-state seller, jurisdictions will likely be more aggressive in seeking sales tax from companies offering purportedly taxable services over the Internet.  And don’t forget that continued vigilance will be necessary, as jurisdictions continue to investigate whether or how to subject streaming services to sales taxes and excise taxes.

balinskas_rebecca_blog_150x150.png

balinskas_rebecca_common_640x280.jpg

balinskas_rebecca_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

balinskas_rebecca_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

balinskas_rebecca_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Rebecca Midori Ulich-Balinskas is of counsel in the Tax Group and is based in Morrison Foerster’s New York office. Her practice focuses on U.S. federal, state and local tax transactional and controversy matters.

Rebecca Balinskas

Rebecca M. Balinskas

mofotechblog-telecoms-600x295-tower.jpg

If Your Company Offers Streaming Services, You Should Be Aware that States and Localities Are Taking Different Approaches to Taxing Such Services

The FCC “Opts-In” to Consumer Privacy with New Rules for Internet Service Providers

489607186

Many states and localities are concerned that the proliferation of streaming services is shrinking tax revenues previously received from sales of traditional fo

If Your Company Offers Streaming Services, You Should Be Aware that States and Localities Are Taking Different Approaches to Taxing Such Services

Two key federal government announcements were made on July 31, 2018 related to fintech issues. First, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a press release announcing a report entitled “Nonbank Financials, Fintech, and Innovation.” The Report is the fourth and final in a series of reports prepared by Treasury in response to President Trump’s February 2017 Executive Order 13772. In addition, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced that it would begin accepting applications for special purpose national bank charters from fintech companies that are engaged in the business of banking, but do not take deposits. This alert reviews these important developments.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-RC7CVO0oWIZlQX3typ6xo">client alert</a>.

mandell_jeremy_blog_150x150.png

mandell_jeremy_common_640x280.jpg

mandell_jeremy_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

mandell_jeremy_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

mandell_jeremy_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair of Financial Services Group

Jeremy Mandell is the co-chair of our Financial Services Practice Group. His practice focuses on financial services regulation, with particular attention to payment