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

Strengthened AI Oversight in the Netherlands

Transforming Tomorrow: The Rise of AI in the Workplace

Current State of the AI VC Financing Market

The Bad Guys Have AI, Too

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

LinkedIN

FIRRMA directed the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), as the chair of CFIUS, to issue regulations that, among other things, address national security concerns arising from foreign investment in U.S. businesses with critical technologies, critical infrastructure, and personal data (referred to in the proposed regulations as “TID U.S. businesses”). The proposed CFIUS regulations implement these provisions of FIRRMA by (i) defining what constitutes a TID U.S. business and (ii) expanding CFIUS’s jurisdiction to include not only transactions that result in control of a TID U.S. business, but also “covered investments” that give a foreign person certain rights with respect to a TID U.S. business (together referred to as “covered transactions”).

capito_charles_blog_150x150.png

capito_charles_common_640x280.jpg

capito_charles_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

capito_charles_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

capito_charles_social_600x600.jpg

Charles Capito is a partner in both Morrison Foerster’s National Security and Government Contracts + Public Procurement practices.
In the National Security space, he has significant experience couns

Charles L. Capito

Charles Capito

benkert_joseph_blog_150x150.png

benkert_joseph_common_640x280.jpg

benkert_joseph_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

benkert_joseph_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

benkert_joseph_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Advisor, National Security

Joseph Benkert is a senior advisor  in Morrison & Foerster’s National Security practice group. He advises  clients on critical national security matters pertaining to the Committee on  Foreign Investm

Joseph Benkert

Joseph A. Benkert

mofotechblog-financings-600x295-chart.jpg

Foreign Investment 2020: CFIUS Spotlight on “TID” U.S. Businesses

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

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

673266772

FIRRMA directed the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), as the chair of CFIUS, to issue regulations that, among other things, address national securit

Foreign Investment 2020: CFIUS Spotlight on “TID” U.S. Businesses

Antitrust scrutiny of technology companies in the United States has reached an unprecedented level of intensity. In the last several months alone, (1) the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) each announced major investigations into digital platforms; (2) as part of its own wide-ranging, bipartisan investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted another round of hearings exploring the impact of digital platforms on competition; and (3) in parallel, states have launched their own joint investigation of large technology companies in consultation with the DOJ. These developments underscore the reality that technology companies of all stripes – especially digital platforms – are operating in an increasingly complex, evolving, and fraught regulatory environment.This article discusses recent developments in the U.S. regulatory landscape, explains how they dovetail with broader antitrust enforcement trends, and explores their potential implications for technology companies.DOJ and FTC Investigations Into Digital PlatformsOn July 23, 2019, the DOJ announced that the Antitrust Division has launched a broad “review” of whether and how “market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.” Although the announcement did not single out specific companies, it stated that the review is focused on concerns relating to “search, social media, and some retail services online.” In addition, the DOJ noted that it is conferring with and seeking information from various interested parties, including the public and industry participants “who have direct insight into competition in online platforms.” On August 30, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, confirmed that it had received a civil investigative demand (CID) from the DOJ requesting documents and information relating to prior antitrust investigations in the United States and abroad.The DOJ review parallels ongoing efforts by the FTC, which has made <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/10/ftc-hearing-3-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">examining</a> and investigating the antitrust implications of large technology companies a major enforcement priority. Earlier this year, the FTC launched the Technology Task Force (TTF), a new division of the Bureau of Competition dedicated to “monitoring competition in U.S. technology markets, investigating any potential anticompetitive conduct in those markets, and taking enforcement actions when warranted.” In addition to examining industry practices and conducting law enforcement investigations, the TTF will coordinate and consult with staff throughout the FTC on technology-related matters, including reviewing prospective and consummated mergers in the technology sector. The TTF is already staffed by at least 17 attorneys detailed from divisions across the Bureau of Competition and will include one or more specialists from the private sector, with direct oversight by senior agency officials. Since its deployment, the TTF has been very busy, proactively meeting with Silicon Valley companies to gather information and considering potential investigations. The extent to which the FTC and DOJ are coordinating their inquiries is unclear. In June, it was reported that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/technology/facebook-ftc-antitrust.html">FTC and DOJ reached a formal clearance agreement</a> dividing up review of major technology companies, although such an agreement has not been confirmed by the agencies. It is unusual for the agencies to formally split up “jurisdiction” over companies. Instead, clearance is typically determined by industry or at the outset of a formal investigation, with investigative authority going to the agency with greater familiarity with the relevant product, service, or sector.State Attorney General InvestigationsFor some time, a large, bipartisan group of state attorneys general (AG) has reportedly been preparing to launch a joint investigation of large technology companies. The states have been closely coordinating their efforts with the DOJ. In July, representatives of several <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/states-antitrust-william-barr-1435474">state AGs met with senior DOJ officials and Attorney General William Barr</a> to discuss antitrust concerns and potential investigations. A spokesperson for Arizona’s AG noted that the meeting “involved a discussion of online platforms and a number of concerns regarding consumer protection issues raised by the states,” adding that, “[w]hile DOJ already has an antitrust review of big tech companies underway, the states are weighing all of their available options and considering possible independent courses of action.” Commenting on collaboration between the DOJ and the states, Antitrust Division head Makan Delrahim recently stated that “it would be a cooperative matter that benefits everybody, and all the states and their enforcement objectives as well as the [companies being investigated].” On September 9, the attorneys general of 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico announced a wide-ranging antitrust investigation of Google, initially focused on online advertising. Today, nearly every state in the United States is involved in sweeping investigations of one or more major technology companies.Congressional Investigation and HearingsIn June, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced a bipartisan investigation focused on competition in digital markets. As part of this investigation, on July 16, 2019, the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law held a hearing with representatives from several technology companies. Committee Chairman David Cicilline set a charged tone for the hearing in his opening remarks, stating that the internet has become “increasingly concentrated, less open, and growingly hostile to innovation and entrepreneurship,” and suggesting that large technology companies are creating a “kill zone” with respect to new competition. He took the FTC and DOJ to task for not doing enough to regulate these platforms, accusing the regulators of giving the companies “de facto immunity.”Committee members questioned the companies on a range of topics, including their respective market positions; their use of terms of service and data policies; the ability of platform owners to wield market power to disadvantage rival participants and benefit their own products and services; and the targeting of nascent competitors in so-called “killer” acquisitions. The companies’ representatives responded to questions in live and written testimony, emphasizing the highly competitive, dynamic, and fragmented nature of the markets at issue and the significant procompetitive benefits stemming from their products and services. Additional Congressional hearings exploring the antitrust implications of large technology platforms will be held in September.Global Enforcement TrendsThese U.S. developments are unfolding in the context of a broader global climate of aggressive and escalating antitrust regulation of digital platforms and other technology companies. Competition authorities around the world are actively pursuing new cases, exploring novel liability theories, and reconsidering whether existing antitrust legal frameworks are equipped to regulate technology companies in the digital economy. For example, as the European Commission’s (EC) preliminary investigation of Google’s online job search tool continues, 23 rival job search engines recently sent a letter to Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager alleging that Google is abusing its dominance by favoring its own job search results and disadvantaging competitors. Since 2017, the EC has brought several enforcement actions against Google for abuse of dominance in online shopping, Android, and ad intermediation, resulting in over $9 billion in fines. Today, numerous competition authorities around the world are actively investigating technology companies in a wide range of areas.Political ClimateMeanwhile, in the political sphere, an increasingly vocal chorus has been calling for extreme reforms to remedy perceived harms to competition, such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-break-up-amazon-facebook.html">the breakup of “Big Tech”</a> and the unwinding of consummated mergers. U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled <a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c">a sweeping plan</a> that proposes “big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition . . . .” Specifically, the plan calls for legislation classifying large digital platforms as “utilities,” prohibited from simultaneously owning and participating in their platforms. In addition, the plan proposes to appoint regulators “committed to using existing tools to unwind anti-competitive mergers.” Echoing this idea, FTC Chairman Simons recently remarked that the FTC would be willing to break up major technology companies if appropriate and necessary to prevent harm to competition, noting that “[i]t’s not ideal because it’s very messy[,] . . . [b]ut if you have to you have to.”Key Insights and TakeawaysThe scope and pace of new developments in antitrust enforcement in the tech sector are dizzying. However, several key themes are emerging from these developments, foreshadowing where enforcement might be headed.<ul><li>First, a new era of antitrust regulation of technology companies is well underway in the United States and abroad. Foundational antitrust principles (e.g., reliance on the consumer welfare standard and the separation of antitrust and privacy laws) are being questioned, while drastic remedies, such as the breakup of firms, are being considered by enforcers and normalized in the political discourse.</li></ul><ul><li>Second, antitrust enforcement in this sector is gaining momentum. The foregoing developments may mark the beginning, rather than the culmination, of a long enforcement arc that could continue for many years.</li></ul><ul><li>Third, technology companies are facing scrutiny from a multitude of sources, including federal and state law enforcement authorities, competition authorities around the world, policymakers, and political figures. Antitrust has become a hot topic in the public domain, taking on a populist dimension as the media covers new developments and fuels the antitrust debate, driving further engagement by key players. As the number of actors propelling aggressive enforcement in the technology sector continues to grow, antitrust exposure increases. Moreover, the pace of enforcement is rapidly accelerating as these entities attempt to keep up with the pace of technological innovation – and one another.</li></ul>In some ways, it remains unclear where these various enforcement vectors may ultimately lead and how they might intersect (e.g., collaboration, jurisdictional tensions, divergent enforcement decisions, and/or duplicative relief). Nonetheless, it is clear that recognizing and managing antitrust risk in this environment requires understanding a complex battle being waged on multiple fronts.

Megan E. Gerking is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice, where she specializes in government-facing antitrust matters. Megan represents companies in criminal and civil con

Megan Gerking

Megan E. Gerking

mofotechblog-iot-600x295-hive.jpg

Uncharted Territory: U.S. Antitrust Enforcement in the Technology Sector

NTIA Announces New Multistakeholder Process for IOT Security Issues

mofotechblog-iot-600x295-hive

Antitrust scrutiny of technology companies in the United States has reached an unprecedented level of intensity. In the last several months alone, (1) the U.S. 

Uncharted Territory: U.S. Antitrust Enforcement in the Technology Sector

Gone are the days that employees work from only one location from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. With employees traveling throughout the U.S., and in many instances, having some employees telecommuting, a company must be diligent. These mobile employees can give rise to potential state and local tax obligations for the employers in unexpected jurisdictions and create tax compliance challenges for even the most diligent employers. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/BHF2CJ67z1UEyj13czXzBL">newsletter</a> to learn more about SALT considerations for a mobile workforce.

mofotechblog-fintech-600x295-dollarsign.jpg

Challenges of a Mobile Workforce

Paying Employees in Cryptocurrency: Is That Lawful? 

mofotechblog-fintech-600x295-dollarsign

Gone are the days that employees work from only one location from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. With employees traveling throughout the U.S., and in many instances, ha

Challenges of a Mobile Workforce

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

Of Counsel

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

On July 10, 2019, Blockstack Token LLC (“Blockstack”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blockstack PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, became the first company to have an offering of digital assets qualified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under Regulation A.Blockstack is a technology company that offers an open-source blockchain-enabled network for developers to build and publish their own decentralized applications. According to Blockstack’s website, over 165 applications have been built on the Blockstack platform. Purchasers of Blockstack’s tokens (“Stacks Tokens”) will be able to use the tokens on its platform.Token offerings have been under increasing scrutiny, especially with respect to whether or not tokens are securities. In its offering circular disclosure, Blockstack acknowledges that the Stacks Tokens are characterized as investment contracts under the Howey test, while noting that the Stacks Tokens “will not have the rights traditionally associated with holders of debt instruments, nor…equity.” The disclosure, in its discussion about the nature of Blockstack’s decentralized network, also references the SEC’s recent guidance on evaluating whether digital assets constitute securities for purposes of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).Many blockchain-based companies have conducted token offerings in the United States under various securities exemptions, including Regulation D, which do not require SEC approval. One notable difference in Regulation D offerings is that general solicitation, such as advertising, is not permitted in offerings to non-accredited investors and, in certain other offerings, the number of participating non-accredited investors will be limited. Blockstack’s approval to offer its tokens under Regulation A will allow an unlimited number of retail investor to buy Stacks Tokens and permit Blockstack to conduct advertising activities.

owen_john_blog_150x150.png

owen_john_common_640x280.jpg

owen_john_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

owen_john_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

owen_john_social_600x600.jpg

John is a Capital Markets, Public Company Advisory & Governance, and Special Situations partner with more than 20 years of experience advising issuers, underwriters, and other market participants in a wide range of special situations, equity, and debt financing transactions.

John T. Owen

John Owen

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.

First Token Offering Qualified by the SEC Under Regulation A

On July 10, 2019, Blockstack Token LLC (“Blockstack”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blockstack PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, became the first comp

First Token Offering Qualified by the SEC Under Regulation A

The Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has issued a 90-day temporary general license exempting a set of transactions from the Entity List designation of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) and its affiliates worldwide, which was effective May 16, 2019. The Entity List designation effectively prohibits the export, re-export, or transfer of hardware, software, and technology subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to Huawei and its affiliates, as explained in our earlier client alert. The temporary general license aims to mitigate the impact of the Entity List designation on the operations of U.S. and foreign telecommunications providers with Huawei hardware and software, but does not provide broad relief from Entity List prohibitions. The general license is effective from May 20, 2019, to August 19, 2019.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Q1E5CjRO5BiKLOvqf5sH6n">client alert</a>

smith_john_blog_150x150.png

smith_john_common_640x280.jpg

smith_john_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

smith_john_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

smith_john_social_600x600.jpg

John E. Smith, former Director of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), is co-head of Morrison Foerster’s National Security practice, and a member of the Crisis Management group and Investigations + White Collar group.

John E. Smith

John E. Smith, former Director of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), is co-head of Morrison Foerster’s National Security practice, and a member of the Global Risk + Crisis Management group and Investigations + White Collar group.

John Smith

mofotechblog-hardware-600x295-chip-2.jpg

Commerce Issues Narrow License for Certain Transactions with Huawei

Watch Out: The Federal Trade Commission Continues to Watch the (Alleged) Watchers

478398876

The Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has issued a 90-day temporary general license exempting a set of transactions from the Entity L

Commerce Issues Narrow License for Certain Transactions with Huawei