Cover Story

While change is a constant in the privacy, security and technology arena, 2025 is poised to be a landmark year. New technologies will continue to radiate through the economy — and our lives — while the new Trump Administration is likely to emphasize innovation over protection, reward maximization over risk minimization, and incentivizing over enforcing.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) stands at a critical juncture heading into 2025. Federal agencies are grappling with mounting backlogs, increasingly complex data landscapes, and rising cybersecurity threats. As a new administration takes office, the urgency to adopt innovative, effective solutions has never been greater.

In the legal industry, volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) (originally a military concept) have reshaped how law firms operate, requiring legal administrators to adapt to a rapidly evolving work environment. Navigating this VUCA landscape involves balancing hybrid work models, evolving return-to-office strategies, and significant workforce challenges, especially in administrative support.

In today’s digitally connected world, we have unparalleled tools at our disposal to connect with target audiences. But with them comes a critical challenge: how to maintain authenticity, human intelligence and personal connection in a landscape increasingly dominated by algorithms, data and automation.

Sports leagues and competitions’ market clout and the increasing consolidation of sports content-streaming companies have recently spawned several civil antitrust actions aimed at reining in these market powers.

The Second Circuit ended a multi-year litigation by affirming a district court’s decision that a landlord’s appeal was “moot for lack of a remedy because, although [that] court [had properly] vacated the assignment and assumption of the lease …, the lease would not revert to [the landlord under Code] §365(d)(4), and that [the landlord] had no alternative remedy.”

In In re Sears Holdings Corporation, the Second Circuit apparently ended a multi-year litigation by affirming the district court’s decision that the landlord’s appeal was “moot for lack of a remedy because, although [that] court [had properly] vacated the assignment and assumption of the lease …, the lease would not revert to [the landlord under Code] §365(d)(4), and that [the landlord] had no alternative remedy.”

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) proposes a solution to a complex debate: What can be patented, and when do nature and thoughts become property? This article provides an overview of the PERA bill, examines the current issues with Section 101 of the Patent Act, the specific proposals of PERA, and the existing pros and cons of the bill.