LJN Newsletters

The skill required to successfully exfiltrate 143 million records is certainly sufficient to successfully attack the integrity of that very same data. It is generally accepted that cyber criminals have not performed integrity attacks because there is a minimal profit motive: Records have a black-market value; in integrity attacks, there is no deliverable that can be sold. This paradigm may be shifting.

The Company Failed to Notify 57 Million Users of a Breach In October 2016. Two Employees Tasked with Handling the Response Process Have Left the Company, Including Uber In-House Attorney Craig Clark, Who Reported to the Company's Chief Security Officer.

Uber Technologies Inc. failed to notify 57 million users that their data was exposed in a breach, according to a company blog post published on November 21, which was confirmed by a source close to the matter.

In today's political climate, it has almost become "normal" that people frivolously make speculative statements without any proof that the statement is true. While this may be standard practice in the political world, in court this practice will not be convincing to any judge, especially when making an argument for e-discovery sanctions based on new rule FRCP 37(e).

This article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.

Many corporations around the globe are preparing for May 2018, when Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enforcement kicks in. The regulation encompasses a wide range of nuanced privacy requirements that can be challenging to operationalize. In particular, requirements around the rights of European data subjects — which include the right to be forgotten and rights to access, rectification and objection to processing — will be some of the most difficult to address.

How the Seminal Fourth Circuit's Ruling Is Applied in Different Circuits

The rule of Zeran has been uniformly applied by every federal circuit court to consider it and by numerous state courts. And it has never been rejected in any precedential opinion. Indeed, it is perhaps a fitting tribute to the viability of Zeran that 20 year later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in its 12th opinion construing the CDA, barely spent even a sentence affirming dismissal of a defamation claim brought against Facebook over user content, pursuant to the CDA and the rule first developed in Zeran.

On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.

President Trump's first 11 months in office brought significant changes to labor and employment law. Immediate changes to the leadership and agendas for the DOL, the EEOC and the NLRB) have already occurred, along with reversals of policy and positions taken in court.