Litigation

Discussion of a recent ruling from New Jersey.

A federal judge in Newark dismissed multidistrict litigation against Google Inc. and Viacom Inc. in rejecting claims that the companies' online data collection violates the privacy of children under 13.

Texas Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling for Lawyer Defendant in Malpractice Suit over TV Network Stock Dispute
TV Executive Can't Get Punitive Damages from Alleged Fraud in Hiring

Typically, the production of data in litigation involves a series of disconnected actions involving several corporate or cloud-based systems. These disassociated e-discovery activities ' identify, preserve, collect, and track (IPCT) ' are then feed into a downstream set of processing, review, and production (PRP) steps often hosted outside the corporate firewall. Fortunately, technology advances are helping counsel and client alike to integrate systems and streamline processes both inside and across the firewall.

Rare Franchisee Judicial Victory Sets Dangerous Precedent for Franchisors

On Dec. 5, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel held that claims directed to systems and methods of generating a composite Web page combining certain visual elements of a "host" website with content of a third-party merchant were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks," and, therefore, were patent-eligible. However, the court cautioned that not all claims addressing Internet-centric challenges are patent-eligible.

Priority of use is a hallmark of trademark law. Over the years, lower courts have recognized a doctrine called "tacking," under which a trademark owner may "clothe a new mark with the priority position of an older mark." The key to the tacking doctrine is that the new trademark must "create the same, continuing commercial impression" as the old mark. In Hana Financial, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the question and settled the circuit split, holding that tacking is a question for the jury.

It is a basic tenet of professional responsibility that lawyers obtain sufficient proficiency to ensure competent representation of their clients. The challenge in today's world of Big Data and corporate globalization and outsourcing of IT infrastructure is that the level of technological proficiency required is not always clear. Understanding your obligations and establishing defensible processes will be necessary to fully demonstrate competence in discovery should an issue arise.