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

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

D.C. Circuit Holds that Works Created Solely by AI are Not Copyrightable

Navigating Inventorship in the Era of AI-Assisted Drug Discovery

LinkedIN

This Monday, May 4, 2020, the United States Supreme Court will hear its first-ever telephonic oral arguments in a trademark case regarding the nature of the boundary between “descriptive” and “generic” terms.  While the question presented is narrow—whether the addition of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term (such as “booking” for travel booking services) can create a protectable trademark—the Court’s ruling could affect how a wide array of brands are (or are no longer) enforced.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200501-landmark-trademark-protection-case-us-supreme-court.html">client alert</a>.

huq_muzamil_blog_150x150.png

huq_muzamil_common_640x280.jpg

huq_muzamil_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

huq_muzamil_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

huq_muzamil_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Muzamil Huq represents clients in the protection and enforcement of U.S. and non-U.S. trademark matters and other IP transactions. 

Muzamil Huq

Muzamil Huq represents clients in the protection and enforcement of U.S. and non-U.S. trademark matters and other IP transactions.

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-gavel.jpg

Landmark Trademark Protection Case Before Supreme Court

The Madden Saga Continues: On Remand, Madden Survives Summary Judgment and District Court Certifies Class

637294178

This Monday, May 4, 2020, the United States Supreme Court will hear its first-ever telephonic oral arguments in a trademark case regarding the nature of the bou

Landmark Trademark Protection Case Before Supreme Court

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just issued new rules that directly affect trademark owners.  Going forward, trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will need to provide their email address in USPTO filings. Unfortunately for trademark owners, unscrupulous third parties will likely take advantage of this new rule and start to use the email addresses to spam trademark owners, as they will be publicly available on the USPTO website. We therefore recommend trademark owners set up an email address specifically for the purpose of complying with the rule. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/BF9ACxk78yUg5RYYUvEQY7?domain=www2.mofo.com">client alert.</a>

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-scales.jpg

New USPTO Rule Likely to Increase Spam

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Whistleblower Claims Under California Labor Code Section 1102.5

638601140

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just issued new rules that directly affect trademark owners.  Going forward, trademark applicants, registr

New USPTO Rule Likely to Increase Spam

On December 19, 2019, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance outlining the Staff’s views about disclosure obligations that companies should consider with respect to technology, data and intellectual property risks that could arise when operations take place outside the United States. Companies should consider this guidance when preparing risk factor and other disclosures included in upcoming periodic reports and registration statements. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/pkYiCXDkqPHNzPjXtDQ4ze?domain=www2.mofo.com">client alert.</a>

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-graph.jpg

SEC Staff Issues Guidance on Technology, Data and Intellectual Property Risks in International Operations

Why Should Your Startup Care About Intellectual Property?

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-graph

On December 19, 2019, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance outlining the Staff’s views abo

SEC Staff Issues Guidance on Technology, Data and Intellectual Property Risks in International Operations

<p style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(82, 83, 87);font-size: 16.93px;font-variant-numeric: normal;font-variant-east-asian: normal;line-height: 27.08px;margin-top: 0px;margin-right: 0px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: 0px;padding-top: 0px;padding-right: 0px;padding-bottom: 0px;padding-left: 0px;overflow-wrap: normal;">In 2017, the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property issued a report to Congress estimating that the theft of trade secrets could cost the United States economy as much as $600 billion annually. In the years following, news reports indicate that alleged instances of corporate espionage and the theft of trade secrets continue at a rapid pace. But sometimes trade secret assertions can be overbroad, vague, and anticompetitive. Many commentators have cautioned that trade secret assertions should not be used improperly to inhibit employee mobility.In a recent example of corporate espionage and theft of trade secrets, on November 21, 2019, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Haitao Xiang, a Chinese national who had previously worked for the Monsanto Company (now a part of Bayer AG), and its subsidiary The Climate Corporation, had been indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit economic espionage, three counts of economic espionage, one count of conspiracy to commit theft of a trade secret, and three counts of theft of a trade secret.

Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. et al. (AAA Arbitration, Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (Northern District of Illinois)

Driscoll’s, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (Eastern District of California)

Bayer CropScience LP v. Tenfold Tech., LLC (Eastern District of Texas)

The Regents of the University of California v. California Berry Cultivars, L.L.C. et al.  (California Superior Court and Northern District of California)

Arch Development Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. (Northern District of Illinois, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and Federal Circuit)

Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Northern District of California and Federal Circuit)

Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and ImmunoGen, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit)

Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)

chivvis_matthew_blog_150x150.png

chivvis_matthew_common_640x280.jpg

chivvis_matthew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

chivvis_matthew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

chivvis_matthew_social_600x600.jpg

Matthew protects his clients’ intellectual property and defends his clients wrongly accused of infringement. His hearing and trial experience is extensive. Whether exploring complex technical issues regarding a biologic drug, or digging into the finer points of patent law, he excels at keeping his opponents on their toes.

Matthew Chivvis

Matthew A. Chivvis

mofotechblog-ip-600x295-lightbulb.jpg

Striking the Balance in Trade Secret and Corporate Espionage Disputes

Supreme Court Restricts the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law for Exported Goods

121901743

In 2017, the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property issued a report to Congress estimating that the theft of trade secrets could cost the Uni

Striking the Balance in Trade Secret and Corporate Espionage Disputes

<p style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(33, 37, 41);font-size: 16px;font-variant-numeric: normal;font-variant-east-asian: normal;line-height: 26.4px;margin-bottom: 16px;margin-top: 0px;">Partner Janet Xiao, who leads the firm’s China Life Sciences Group, co-authored an article with associate Can Cui for Intellectual Property Magazine, titled “Crossing Borders,” which explores technology transfer opportunities emerging from import rules in China. The authors note that Chinese companies are eager to bring foreign innovative technologies to China, and, despite trade tensions between the U.S. and China, cross-border technology transfers into China, especially in the life sciences area, have remained active. Janet and Can then breakdown how these technology transfers are being regulated through China’s technology import and export regulations (TIER), including how a recent amendment to TIER has impacted the space.

xiao_janet_blog_150x150.png

xiao_janet_common_640x280.jpg

xiao_janet_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

xiao_janet_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

xiao_janet_social_600x600.jpg

Janet focuses her practice on worldwide patent procurement, patent portfolio management, and strategic planning for life sciences companies. Janet’s clients range from large multinational biopharmaceu

Janet Xiao Ph.D.

Janet focuses her practice on worldwide patent procurement, patent portfolio management, and strategic planning for life sciences companies. Janet’s clients range from large multinational biopharmaceutical companies, such as Celgene and Genentech, to emerging startup companies around the world.

Janet Xiao

Crossing Borders

Partner Janet Xiao, who leads the firm’s China Life Sciences Group, co-authored an article with associate Can Cui for Intellectual Property Magazine, titled “Cr

Crossing Borders

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs has spotlighted the thorny legal issues involved in unauthorized webscraping of data from public websites. While some may interpret the LinkedIn decision as greenlighting such activity, this would be a mistake. On close review of the decision, and in light of other decisions that have held unauthorized webscrapers liable, the conduct remains vulnerable to legal challenge.

Platform Liability

Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property

International Arbitration

Bankruptcy Litigation

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

Ninth Circuit’s LinkedIn Decision Does Not Greenlight the Unauthorized Webscraping of Public Websites

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs has spotlighted the thorny legal issues involved in unautho

Ninth Circuit’s LinkedIn Decision Does Not Greenlight the Unauthorized Webscraping of Public Websites

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most disruptive technologies of our era. For many technology companies and startups, AI constitutes the core of their prized products, from autonomous vehicles to pick-and-place robots to voice assistants. With the rapid development of AI comes a unique set of challenges to protect it via the patent system in the United States. Fortunately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is working diligently to provide guidelines for patent practitioners to make the path to patentability less uncertain. On August 27, the USPTO published a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/27/2019-18443/request-for-comments-on-patenting-artificial-intelligence-inventions">Notice </a>in the Federal Register requesting information from the public on AI patent-related issues, including feedback on questions pertaining to the intersection of AI and patent law.The AI academic and industrial community is likely to have many unique perspectives on these and other questions as the application of AI spans numerous technology sectors. Input from all technology sectors, as well as the patent practitioners representing these sectors, is certain to aid the USPTO in developing guidance that will provide a more predictable path to navigate patenting of AI technologies.

yuan_anna_blog_150x150.png

yuan_anna_common_640x280.jpg

yuan_anna_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

yuan_anna_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

yuan_anna_social_600x600.jpg

Anna Yuan’s practice focuses on patent prosecution, IP due diligence, post-grant proceedings, and IP litigation support. 

Anna Yuan

potter_karen_blog_150x150.png

potter_karen_common_640x280.jpg

potter_karen_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

potter_karen_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

potter_karen_social_600x600.jpg

Karen Potter is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Life Sciences Patent group. Her practice focuses on patent preparation, prosecution, and strategic counseling for start‑up, emerging, and established

Karen G Potter Ph.D.

Karen Potter

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-gavel.jpg

AI Patent Policy – Calling All Technology Practitioners

811079234

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most disruptive technologies of our era. For many technology companies and startups, AI constitutes the core 

AI Patent Policy – Calling All Technology Practitioners

Morrison & Foerster surveyed intellectual property decision-makers from more than 50 companies with revenues greater than $750 million each. The study showed that, while intellectual-property litigation has decreased by 26% since 2015, the amount that companies spend on intellectual-property litigation is higher than ever. Morrison & Foerster’s Benchmarking IP Litigation 2019 report offers important insights into this change and a list of questions that companies will want to ask themselves in the face of increased IP litigation spending.IP litigation spend has increased to $3.3 billion from $1.7 billion in 2005. That uptick is due to several factors, including the larger damage awards that typically result from patent-infringement lawsuits asserting multiple claims. These multi-claim, patent-infringement suits have become popular because they decrease the risk of an entire patent-infringement suit being dismissed.The globalization of markets and supply chains is also playing a part in the amount companies are spending on IP litigation. Because patent disputes like the smartphone patent wars are increasingly likely to play out around the world, companies must locate and hire counsel in multiple jurisdictions to develop cross-market strategies.Navigating multinational laws and judicial systems is becoming even more necessary as an increasing number of IP litigants file overseas in countries including China, which is known for the speed of its dispute-resolution processes and its available injunctive remedies.For a list of questions that can help your company prepare for the globalization of patent litigation and mitigate risks inherent in the higher cost of litigating patent cases, read the study that Morrison & Foerster commissioned: Benchmarking IP Litigation 2019.<iframe src="https://www2.mofo.com/l/323401/2019-08-06/4t9b6" width="100" height="500" type="text/html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 100; height: 500;border-top-width: 0px;border-right-width: 0px;border-bottom-width: 0px;border-left-width: 0px;border-top-style: initial;border-right-style: initial;border-bottom-style: initial;border-left-style: initial;border-top-color: initial;border-right-color: initial;border-bottom-color: initial;border-left-color: initial;border-image-source: initial;border-image-slice: initial;border-image-width: initial;border-image-outset: initial;border-image-repeat: initial;" title="iframe"></iframe>

Preparing for the Increased Globalization of IP Litigation

Morrison & Foerster surveyed intellectual property decision-makers from more than 50 companies with revenues greater than $750 million each. The study showed th

Preparing for the Increased Globalization of IP Litigation

The Department of Defense is actively pursuing “Other Transactions” (OTs) instead of procurement contracts. This allows DOD and its contractors to avoid many of the most burdensome aspects of the procurement regulations. But it also allows for even more confusion than usual about how to handle intellectual property rights, particularly rights in technical data and computer software, because there are no “standard” IP clauses for OTs.Morrison & Foerster partner Jay DeVecchio has written a Briefing Paper, published by Thomson Reuters, that sorts out these issues and offers clear, practical advice. With Thomson Reuters’ permission we have attached Jay’s paper, which we hope will assist you in your OT negotiations.<a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltefaca2a1a876415e/627317ca0d4d8e1d7f10f312/190701-dod-data-rights-ip-simplified.pdf">Read the Briefing Paper</a>.This material from Briefing Papers has been reproduced with the permission of the publisher, Thomson Reuters.

mofotechblog-software-600x295-tunnel.jpg

DOD’s Other Transactions: Data Rights & Intellectual Property Simplified

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

507065943

The Department of Defense is actively pursuing “Other Transactions” (OTs) instead of procurement contracts. This allows DOD and its contractors to avoid many of

DOD’s Other Transactions: Data Rights & Intellectual Property Simplified

On July 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its seminal decision in Huawei v. ZTE.  In its decision, the ECJ provided fundamental guidance for the licensing and enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) that are subject to a FRAND licensing commitment (i.e., a commitment by the patent owner to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms). While Huawei and ZTE have settled the patent dispute that gave rise to the ECJ’s judgment, the decision left it to courts in Germany and other European countries to apply and refine the general principles laid out by the ECJ. The case law on what is known as the “FRAND defense” in injunction proceedings is evolving and remains unsettled in important areas. Since our last update (see First German Decisions Applying the ECJ’s Huawei v. ZTE Framework on Injunctions for Standard Essential Patents), there have been several important decisions in Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere that have applied and interpreted the Huawei v. ZTE guidelines.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/o418C9rLGjHJlRB9h3_oxk">client alert</a>.

FRAND Case Law in Europe After Huawei v. ZTE

On July 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its seminal decision in Huawei v. ZTE.  In its decision, the ECJ provided fundamental guidance fo