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

Given the broad use and relative importance of service-level agreements (SLAs) in a variety of contexts, in this blog post, we provide an overview of the basics

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

Service-Level Agreement Basics | MoFo Tech

Stephanie Lynn Sharron

Given the broad use and relative importance of service-level agreements (SLAs) in a variety of contexts, in this blog post, we provide an overview of the basics of SLAs and what they should address. An SLA is an important part of any contract with a provider of technology-based products or services. Customers and providers use SLAs to establish performance expectations for a wide variety of services, ranging from software-as-a-service (SaaS), maintenance, hosting, support, or other cloud-based services, to delivery of tangible goods.An SLA sets out the provider’s performance obligations with respect to the services it provides to the customer in measurable and objective terms via defined service-level requirements. 1.  Elements of a service level<ul><li>Service scope: Definition of what services are covered by the service levels.</li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirement: Definition of what performance is required for the measured activity. Think of it as the substance of what specifically must be done to have performed the service level (the “what” of the equation).</li></ul><ul><li>Performance standard: Definition of the performance standard. Think of this as proportion of the time (or some other means of measurement like percentage of transactions) for which the performance requirement must be met in order for the service level to be achieved. <ul><li>Often this is expressed as a percentage of the time the provider has performed the measured activity in accordance with the performance requirement.</li><li>The provider may designate certain exceptions or carve-outs to the performance standard (e.g., windows during which not meeting the performance standard is excused).</li></ul></li></ul>2.  Measurement of a service level<ul><li>Measurement period: Definition of the time period over which the service level is measured (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly).</li></ul><ul><li>Means of measurement: Reporting or other means of measuring whether the above elements have been achieved. The provider is typically responsible for measuring the service levels and reporting on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) on actual performance against the service levels. <ul><li>The parties should avoid subjective standards that are susceptible to conflicting interpretations, such as “reasonable efforts.”</li><li>The customer may want to specify how the service levels are reported and require the provider to carry out trend analysis on problems that are occurring.</li><li>Failure to provide a service-level report on time, or at all, may legitimately result in a service credit (see below) since the customer does not have the necessary means to assess whether the relevant service levels have been met without a service-level report.</li></ul></li></ul>3.  Remedies for failure to achieve service levelsRemedies for failure to achieve service levels are typically: (a) fee reductions or service credits against fees incurred, and (b) ultimately, termination for repeated failures. a.      Fee reductions or service credits against fees incurredService-level requirements are keyed to a specific formula for calculating fee reductions or service credits that the provider must issue to the customer if performance falls below the required service level. The fee reductions or service credits can be weighted based on relative importance. Service credits are usually expressed as a percentage of fees for the applicable service, to be credited against future charges to the customer if the provider fails to meet a service level.<ul><li>Optional to include: <ul><li>“At risk” amount: The percentage of the fees payable over a specified time period that are subject to service level credits. <ul><li>Example: “The maximum percentage of Fees payable over a Contract Year that are subject to the Service Level Credits is 30% of the sum of that Contract Year’s monthly recurring fees.”</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>Weighting factor: Apply a percentage value to each Service Level (total of all percentage values corresponding to the Service Levels should add up to 100%). <ul><li>Example: “If Provider does not achieve any of the Service Levels, Fees payable hereunder will be reduced in an amount equal to the product of: (i) one-twelfth of the Annual At-Risk Amount, multiplied by (ii) the Weighting Factor for the Service Level that was missed.”</li></ul></li><li>Multiplier applied to weighting factor (if service level credits and “at risk” amount is applied): The percentage of the “at risk” amount that is attributable to the service level for purposes of calculating service level credits. <ul><li>Example: “If there is a failure as to a single Service Level in 2 or more consecutive Measurement Periods or as to any Service Level within any 3-month period, then the Weighting Factor will be multiplied by 2.”</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Pro-provider terms that customers with greater leverage may be able to avoid: <ul><li>Limitation of service credits to a stated cap (for example, the total amount of fees otherwise payable for the services during the period when the service-level failure occurs).</li><li>Earn-backs: The parties might agree to a mechanism for the provider to earn back some or all credits imposed due to failure to meet service levels if its average performance over the course of a specified time period (e.g., a year) meets or exceeds the required service level.</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Service credits are typically applied to (deducted from) charges in the next invoice after they are incurred, but the parties may agree to apply them on an annual basis, deducting the total amount of service credits from the first invoice of the contract year.</li></ul><ul><li>To enhance the likelihood that service credits will be enforced, remedies generally should reflect a reasonable estimate of the customer’s injury for the corresponding service-level failure and constitute compensatory liquidated damages rather than a penalty for non-performance.</li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive remedy: Customers want to preserve the right to pursue other remedies under the master agreement (such as damages and termination) if the provider fails to meet service levels. On the other hand, providers want the service credits to be the customer’s only remedy for service level failures. <ul><li>Pro-customer example: “The Service Credits shall not be considered liquidated damages or Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy for Provider’s failure to meet Service Levels."</li></ul></li></ul><div>  b.      Termination for repeated failure to achieve the service-level commitment over a pre-defined period of   timeCustomers will want to negotiate for the right to terminate without liability or further obligations for repeated failures to meet the same or different service-level requirements.<ul><li>Example: “Provider’s failure to achieve a single Service Level in 2 or more consecutive Measurement Periods, or any Service Level in 4 or more Measurement Periods during any 6-month period or Contract Year will constitute a material breach under the Master Agreement and Customer may terminate for cause as set forth therein.”</li></ul></div>

Service-Level Agreement Basics

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