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

Blockchain

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

Current State of the AI VC Financing Market

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Tech and Antitrust: Policy Shifts in the Second Trump Administration

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Responsible Tech: Policy Becomes Practice

AI Dynamics: Regulatory Landscape and Industry Insights

Introducing the MoFo Tech Law Summit – Innovation Under Regulation

LinkedIN

Saliha Madden (“Madden”) claims that Midland Funding LLC (“Midland”) illegally charged Madden and other similarly situated New York debtors a usurious rate of interest on certain defaulted credit card obligations that Midland had purchased from a national bank.After a previous summary judgement for Midland was reversed, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in part denied a renewed motion by Midland to dispose of claims brought by Madden under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the New York General Business Law (NYGBL) – in a February 27, 2017 decision.The court held that New York’s criminal usury cap prevents a debt holder from collecting interest above 25%, even if such debt is in default, and that New York law, not Delaware law, applies to the dispute.The long-recognized, common law principle “valid when made,” which provides that loan terms that are valid when made remain valid loan terms until they are satisfied or forgiven, irrespective of whether or to whom the loan is sold, was not discussed. As a result, the relationship between the conclusions memorialized in the Order and the “valid when made” principle is unclear.Further action is pending on a class action.Read the full <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt1c4df06bda7794e5/62730e994d9f89297128ff6d/170306-madden-saga-summary-judgment.pdf">Client Alert</a>.

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

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-gavel.jpg

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

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

637294178

Saliha Madden (“Madden”) claims that Midland Funding LLC (“Midland”) illegally charged Madden and other similarly situated New York debtors a usurious rate of i

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/14-1538_p8k0.pdf" target="_blank">Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp</a>. held that if a party provides from the United States just one component of a foreign-manufactured, multicomponent, patent-infringing invention, that party cannot be liable under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1).Life Technologies made or procured in the United States an enzyme that was combined in the United Kingdom with four other components to form a genetic testing kit. Promega sued for patent infringement, alleging Life Technologies was liable for sales of the kit worldwide because Life Technologies had supplied one of the kit’s four components. Promega argued Life Technologies was liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1), which imposes liability for patent infringement on “[w]hoever without authority supplies. . . in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components” of a patent-infringing invention made up of several components that are combined abroad.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with Promega’s argument, holding in an opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor that one component could not equal “a substantial portion of the components” because that phrase required a quantitative—rather than a qualitative—assessment. The Court reached this conclusion based on the context of the “substantial portion of the components” phrase, holding that the words “all” and “portion” imply a quantitative meaning.Life Technologies settles one issue for manufacturers: They will not violate 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) by supplying one component of a multi-component invention assembled abroad. Exactly how many more than one component is necessary to trigger 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1) liability, however, remains unclear.

mofotechblog-ip-600x295-lightbulb.jpg

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

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

121901743

On February 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. held that if a party provides from the United States just one component

In the ongoing debate over government access to private communications the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected a Government motion to dismiss a suit by Microsoft challenging the constitutionality of certain secrecy provisions of the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Presently, law enforcement officials can request user data under the SCA from service providers such as Microsoft, and then seek an indefinite non-disclosure order under if there is “reason to believe” notification would result in the destruction of evidence, put witnesses or others in danger, or seriously jeopardize an investigation or trial. Such orders preclude Microsoft from informing users about the government’s access to their information.This District Court’s ruling comes at a time of increased scrutiny of the SCA. Originally passed in 1986, the SCA has been viewed by many as outdated and incompatible with society’s current widespread reliance on electronic communications.Two recent court decisions have reached different conclusions about whether the SCA enables the government to access communications stored abroad consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Pending Congressional legislation would reform the so-called “180-day rule” in the current SCA permitting government access to emails and stored communications older than 180 days without obtaining a warrant.

mofotechblog-software-600x295-code-2.jpg

Court Allows Microsoft to Challenge Secrecy of User Data Requests

Court Allows Microsoft to Challenge Secrecy of User Data Requests

629285904

In the ongoing debate over government access to private communications the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected a Govern

In an opinion that departs significantly from one issued by the Second Circuit in 2016 in a similar case against Microsoft, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania <a target="_blank" href="https://links.casemakerlegal.com/docView.aspx?DocId=2924357&Index=d%3a%5cdtsearch%5cindex%5c01Test%5cALL_NC_CASE&HitCount=8&hits=27f6+27f7+27f8+27f9+2800+2801+2802+282e+&categoryAlias=District%20Court%20Opinions&fCount=4&cf=0&dt=CASES&jurisdictions.allFederal=False&jurisdictions.allStates=False&searchType=overview&bReqSt=US&dataT=CASES">held</a> that Google must comply with a subpoena from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for user data stored overseas.Both courts’ holdings were based on their interpretations of the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-121">Stored Communications Act</a> (SCA), which prescribes the ways in which Internet service providers may disclose their users’ information. Both courts agreed that the SCA applies only within the United States, but they differed on where the relevant conduct in such cases takes place. The Pennsylvania district court “respectfully disagreed” with the Microsoft court’s finding that seizure of the data abroad was the relevant conduct, and held that the relevant conduct was “the actual invasion of the account holders’ privacy—the searches—[that] will occur in the United States.” As a result, the Pennsylvania district court held that the SCA applies.Find out what this decision means for U.S.-based cloud services providers and what it implies about the import of the Second Circuit’s Microsoft opinion.

mofotechblog-cloud-600x295-cloud1.jpg

Google Ordered to Comply with Warrant for Foreign-Stored User Data

Google Ordered to Comply with Warrant for Foreign-Stored User Data

511541940

In an opinion that departs significantly from one issued by the Second Circuit in 2016 in a similar case against Microsoft, the U.S. District Court for the East