Category: International Law

New, Immigration-Friendly Mission Statement for USCIS

USCIS has changed its mission statement again – this time to adopt a more immigration-friendly stance.

In 2018, USCIS, under the Trump Administration, changed its mission statement to align with President Donald Trump’s focus on enforcement, strict scrutiny, and extreme vetting. The statement did not emphasize customer satisfaction, i.e., the satisfaction of petitioners, applicants, and beneficiaries. The change in emphasis was stark and did not go unnoticed. Instead, the mission statement focused on protecting and serving the American people and ensuring that benefits were not provided to those who did not qualify or those who “would do us harm ….” The 2018 statement did not speak of the United States as a “nation of migrants” and it focused on efficiency while “protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

The new 2022 USCIS mission statement reflects President Joe Biden’s belief that “new Americans fuel our economy as innovators and job creators, working in every American industry, and contributing to our arts, culture, and government.” Accordingly, he has issued executive orders directing the various immigration agencies to reduce unnecessary barriers to immigration. The 2022 mission statement also reflects President Biden’s directions and USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou’s “vision for an inclusive and accessible agency.” Director Jaddou “is committed to ensuring that the immigration system . . . is accessible and humane . . . [serving] the public with respect and fairness, and lead with integrity to reflect America’s promise as a nation of welcome and possibility today and for generations to come.”

According to Director Jaddou, USCIS will strive to achieve the core values of treating applicants with integrity, dignity, and respect and using innovation to provide world-class service while vigilantly strengthening and enhancing security. On February 3, 2022, Director Jaddou, along with her deputies, briefed the nation on the agency’s efforts to improve service at USCIS. The leaders of the agency made clear that USCIS knows it must continue to eliminate backlogs, cut processing times, reduce unneeded Requests for Evidence and interviews, eliminate inequities in processing times across service centers and improve the contact center, among other things, to achieve its goals. Using streamlining and technological innovation, USCIS hopes to make itself much more consumer-oriented.

Article By Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

FBI and DHS Warn of Russian Cyberattacks Against Critical Infrastructure

U.S. officials this week warned government agencies, cybersecurity personnel, and operators of critical infrastructure that Russia might launch cyber-attacks against Ukrainian and U.S. networks at the same time it launches its military offensive against Ukraine.

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) warned law enforcement, military personnel, and operators of critical infrastructure to be vigilant in searching for Russian activity on their networks and to report any suspicious activity, as they are seeing an increase in Russian scanning of U.S. networks. U.S. officials are also seeing increased disinformation and misinformation generated by Russia about Ukraine.

The FBI and DHS urged timely patching of systems and reporting of any Russian activity on networks, so U.S. officials can assess the threat, assist with a response, and prevent further activity.

For more information on cyber incident reporting, click here.

Even though a war may be starting halfway across the world, Russia’s cyber capabilities are global. Russia has the capability to bring us all into its war by attacking U.S. government agencies and companies. We are all an important part of preventing attacks and assisting others from becoming a victim of Russia’s attacks. Closely watch your network for any suspicious activity and report it, no matter how small you think it is.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

China’s Supreme People’s Court Rules No Accounting for Profit for Joint Patent Ownership

In decision no. （2020）最高法知民终954号 dated November 25, 2021, China’s Supreme People’s Court ruled that if the co-owners of a patent or patent application right do not make an agreement on the exercise of the right and one of the co-owners independently practices the patent,  the other co-owner cannot claim the distribution of the proceeds from the separate practicing of the patent on the grounds of co-ownership of the patent right.

 

 

 

 

 

The appellant, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University 温州医科大学附属第一医院 (hereinafter referred to as Wenzhou Hospital) and the appellee Shenzhen Huilistong Information Technology Co., Ltd. 深圳市汇利斯通信息技术有限公司 (hereinafter referred to as Huilistong Company) were involved in a patent infringement litigation for CN Patent No. ZL 201210235924.0 entitled “a self-service terminal used in the lobby of a hospital.”

Wenzhou Hospital asserted that it co-owns the involved patent with Huilistong. Without its permission, Huilistong Company violated the rights of Wenzhou Hospital by practicing the patent involved in the case, and requested an order for Huilistong Company to stop the infringement and destroy inventory of infringing products and compensate Wenzhou Hospital for economic losses of 2.5098 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 116,400 RMB.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province held that Huilistong Company could independently practice the patent involved in the case in accordance with the law, which does not constitute an infringement of the patent right of Wenzhou Hospital.

Wenzhou Hospital appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court made a determination on the issue of “allocation of royalties,” and on September 24, 2020, it rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The Supreme People’s Court explained that Article 15 of the Patent Law stipulates that if the co-owners of the patent right have an agreement on the exercise of the right, such agreement shall prevail. If there is no agreement, the co-owners may practice the patent alone or permit others to implement the patent by way of ordinary licensing; if the patent is permitted to be practiced by others, the royalties collected shall be distributed among the co-owners.

Except for the circumstances specified in the preceding paragraph, the exercise of joint patent application rights or patent rights shall obtain the consent of all co-owners.

Therefore, without the consent of the co-owner of the patent, the co-owner of a patent may directly obtain economic benefits through the co-owned patent in two ways: first, to separately practice the co-owned patent, and second, to license others to exploit the patent in the way of ordinary license, and only in the latter circumstance may there be a requirement for distributing the profits to the co-owners, but under the circumstance of independent exploitation, there is no such requirement.

In this case, Wenzhou Hospital claimed that some of the self-service registration integrated machines involved in this case were marked with such words as the joint research and development by Huilistong Company and the hospital involved in this case. However, this does not prove that Huilistong Company licensed the hospital involved in this case to use the patent involved, and there was no evidence in this case that the hospital involved in this case paid any patent licensing fee to Huilistong Company.

Therefore, the claim of Wenzhou Hospital for sharing the economic proceeds obtained by Huilistong Company from the exploitation of the patent at issue was not valid.

Wenzhou Hospital separately claimed that, according to the provisions of the civil law on the sharing of proceeds by the co-owners with respect to the co-owned property, Wenzhou Hospital also had the right to share the economic proceeds obtained by Huillistong Company from the implementation of the patent in question.

In response, the Supreme People’s Court held that, although Article 78 (2) of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that “a co-owner enjoys the rights and assumes the obligations over the co-owned property,” this provision is a general provision on the co-owned property, and the aforesaid provision of the Patent Law falls under the special provisions on the distribution mechanism of the rights and interests of all co-owners under the circumstance of co-ownership of patents, and the special provisions of the Patent Law shall prevail.

Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court ruled for Huilistong Company.

The full text of the decision is available here (Chinese only).

© 2021 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

International Air Travelers Entering the United States Must Have a Negative COVID-19 Test

Effective Jan. 26, 2021, all air passengers traveling to the United States will be required to get a viral test for current infection within the three days before their flight to the U.S. is scheduled to depart, and provide written documentation of their laboratory test results (paper or electronic copy) to the airline. In lieu of a negative test result in that timeframe, the passenger may provide documentation of having recovered from COVID-19 in the past three months and proof of having been cleared for travel by a licensed health care provider or health official.

How Will This Rule Be Enforced?

Airlines will be required to confirm the negative test result for all passengers (or documentation of recovery from COVID-19) before they board. Therefore, if a passenger cannot provide documentation of a negative test or recovery, or chooses not to take a test, the airline is required to deny boarding to the passenger.

A negative test result must be provided to the airline in order to return by air travel to the United States. All travelers must plan to allow for testing and receipt of laboratory test results when planning return travel to the United States.

Travelers may also be required to produce written documentation (either paper or electronic copy) of their test results upon request to any U.S. government official or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

Who Does the Testing Requirement Pertain To?

The testing requirement applies to all air travelers bound for the U.S., including U.S. citizens and is required for all airline passengers ages two and older. Even those individuals who already have received the COVID-19 vaccine must provide evidence of a negative COVID-19 test for travel.

NOTE: The rule does not apply to passengers on flights from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, since those are U.S. territories.

Which Type of Test Do I Need?

Passengers will need to provide results from an antigen test or PCR (viral antigen or nucleic acid

amplification test). Antibody test results will not be accepted, because the test results must rule out current COVID-19 infection.

For those individuals who have recovered from COVID-19, they can provide documentation of having recovered from COVID-19 in the past three months (they can bring evidence of their previous positive test result, with proof that they have been cleared for travel by a licensed health care provider or health official).

Where Can I Get Tested in a Foreign Country?

Look for guidance from airlines, hotels, tourism bureaus and health care providers when booking travel.  Many countries post their current COVID-19 protocols and guidance for international travelers needing to be tested, as well.

How Long Will This Rule Be In Effect?

The rule is in place indefinitely, and likely will remain in place until the coronavirus surge has subsided or other controls are in place.

Additional CDC Recommendations

As always, the CDC also continues to advise travelers to also get tested again three to five days after arrival in the U.S. and to stay at home for seven days post-travel to help slow the spread of COVID-19 within U.S. communities.

© 2020 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
For more, visit the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Ongoing Challenges for Fashion Brands in Germany – Legal Issues with Style Names Revisited

Using first names as style names to assist consumers in distinguishing between certain items, styles or washes within a collection is a widespread practice in the fashion industry. Compared to numerical identifiers, names may trigger emotions and are much easier to remember. Style names may be used in manifold ways, e.g. on labels sewn in the inside of garments, hangtags and boxes or in advertising material such as catalogues and offers on the internet. What many companies do not realize is that the use of style names involves legal risks. Many names are already registered as trademarks, which may give rise to trademark conflicts.

Germany has become a popular venue for disputes involving style names in recent years. Only comparatively few claims are raised by actual competitors, though. Rather, there are trade mark owners trying to benefit from the peculiarities of German civil procedure and trade mark law by monitoring the market for possibly infringing style names in order to collect legal fees and damages. In many cases, such claimants will threaten to sue other companies in the distribution chain, including retailers, in order to put pressure on the fashion company to settle regardless of the merits.

In this blog post, we would like to raise awareness for the legal issues involved with style names in Germany and address ways how best to deal with them.

Trade Mark Infringing Use or Mere Model Designation?

According to European case law, the owner of a trade mark may oppose the use of a sign identical with the trade mark for goods identical with those for which the trade mark is registered only if such use is liable to adversely affect one of the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods.

Whether a style name is perceived by consumers as enabling them to distinguish that product from those of a different origin, rather than being used as a reference to differentiate between a fashion company’s own styles, may give rise to considerable debate. In fact, many style names have over time become renowned brands – such as Gucci’s “Jackie” or Mulberry’s “Alexa”. Correspondingly, the case law of the German instance courts on whether the use of a sign as a style name constitutes trade mark infringing use has not been uniform. As German law allows for forum shopping, trade mark owners would usually seek the assistance of the courts in Hamburg and Frankfurt, which regularly assumed that style names are understood by the relevant public as an indication of origin and thus as (secondary) trade marks.

Notably, cease and desist letters are often sent by companies which do not manufacture or supply clothing or accessories, or at the very least are not known for this, but rather hold trade marks and engage in enforcing their rights to collect attorney fees and damages. Such right holders will usually not let a party “off the hook,” unless it issues a formal cease and desist declaration (with a contractual penalty clause, as is common practice under German law) and makes a payment to settle the case amicably. To increase pressure, these claimants will threaten to interfere with the fashion company’s distribution system by sending warning letters and/or suing commercial customers.

Guidelines by the German Federal Court of Justice

As at least some courts took an extremely right-holder-friendly approach, such cases were until recently hard to defend. Prospects of defense have improved, however, thanks to the judgments of the German Federal Court of Justice in “SAM”[1] and “MO”[2].

In these decisions, the Federal Court of Justice clarified that the use of a distinctive and non-descriptive sign as a style name does not in itself allow the conclusion that the sign is used as a trade mark. The fact that the style name is perceived as an indication of origin must be positively determined every single time. On that basis, the Court established some general guidelines for assessing whether a style name is used as a trade mark in an individual case:

  • First names used by several manufacturers as style names or particularly common first names – As followed from the Court’s previous case law[3], such names may be understood by the public as mere model designations. It could not be concluded from this, however, that less common first names are always understood as an indication of origin.
  • Directly affixed to the product – The public will typically see an indication of origin when a sign is directly affixed to the product, e.g. on a label sewn in the inside of the waistband or on a leather piece attached on the outside of the waistband.
  • Use on hangtags – The printing of a style name on hangtags attached to the garment could also be understood as an indication of origin under the circumstances.
  • Use in sales offers, e.g. in catalogues or on the internet – If the sign is used in a sales offer, e.g. in a catalog or on the internet, the offer as a whole and the character of the sign must be considered. If it can be assumed that the style name is well known, there is a strong argument in favor of using it as a trade mark, regardless of the further circumstances. Even if the style name is not known, use as a trade mark can be assumed, in particular if the style name is used in direct connection with the manufacturer’s or umbrella brand. In addition, an eye-catching emphasis speaks for use as a trade mark.

Comments

As usual, the devil is in the detail. Whilst it is relatively clear that use of a style name on the product can often be assumed as trade mark use, recent decisions by the courts[4] illustrate that in advertising every single detail of the offer has to be taken into consideration. This includes the overall layout of the offer and the relationship of the sign in suit to the manufacturer’s or umbrella brand and further article designations such as price, size, product description and delivery modalities. Nevertheless, the guidelines developed by the German Federal Court of Justice open up considerable room for argument.

As far as preventive measures are concerned, for fashion companies using hundreds or even thousands of style names, worldwide trade mark clearance is not always an option in view of the considerable costs involved. As soon as it crystallizes that a style name may become important for the company’s business, it is worth protecting it by trade mark registrations. In addition, compliance with a few simple rules when using style names based on the German Federal Court of Justice’s guidelines can minimize the risk of objections significantly.

[1] BGH, judgment of 7 March 2019, case I ZR 195/17 – SAM.

[2] BGH, judgment of 11 April 2019, case I ZR 108/18 – MO.

[3] Cf. BGH, judgment of 19 December 1960, case I ZR 39/59 – Tosca; BGH, judgment of 20 March 1970, case I ZR 7/69 – Felina-Britta; BGH, judgment of 26 November 1987, case I ZR 123/85 – Gaby.

[4] See, for example, Frankfurt Court of Appeals, judgment of 13 August 2020, case 6 U 94/17 – MO; Frankfurt Court of Appeals, judgment of 1 October 2019, case 6 U 111/16 – SAM; Hamburg Court of Appeals, judgment of 28 November 2019, case 5 U 65/18 – Rock Isha; Hamburg Court of Appeals, judgment of 19 December 2019, case 3 U 191/18 – MYMMO MINI.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on intellectual property, visit the National Law Review intellectual property law section.

The Naked Truth About Trademark Cancellation: Only Harm, No Proprietary Interest Required

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a contracting party that contractually abandoned any proprietary interest in a mark may still bring a cancellation action if it can “demonstrate a real interest in the proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage.” Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, Case No. 19-1567 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2020) (Reyna, J.) (Wallach, J., dissenting).

Australian sold condoms with the marks NAKED and NAKED CONDOMS, first in Australia in early 2000, then in the United States in 2003. Two years later, Australian learned that Naked TM’s predecessor had registered a trademark NAKED for condoms in September 2003. Australian and Naked TM communicated by email regarding use of the mark for a few years. Naked TM contended that the parties reached an agreement; Australian disagreed and said no final terms were agreed upon. Australian filed a petition to cancel the NAKED trademark registration. Ultimately, and after trial, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) concluded that Australian lacked standing because it had reached an informal agreement that Naked TM reasonably believed was an abandonment of any right to contest Naked TM’s registration of NAKED. Thus, the TTAB found that Australian lacked a real interest in the proceeding because it lacked a proprietary interest in the challenged mark. Australian appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. First, the Court clarified that the proper inquiry was a matter of proving an element of the cause of action under 15 USC § 1064 rather than standing. The Court explained that, contrary to the TTAB’s conclusion, “[n]either § 1064 nor [its] precedent requires that a petitioner have a proprietary right in its own mark in order to demonstrate a cause of action before the Board.” Assuming without deciding that the TTAB correctly determined that Australian had contracted away its rights, the Court found that fact irrelevant. Ultimately, even though an agreement might be a bar to showing actual damages, a petitioner need only show a belief that it has been harmed to bring a petition under § 1064.

The Federal Circuit found that Australian had a reasonable belief in its own damage and a real interest in the proceedings based on a history of two prior applications to register the mark, both of which the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected on the basis that they would have created confusion with Naked TM’s mark. The Court rejected Naked TM’s argument that Australian’s abandonment of those applications demonstrated there was no harm, instead concluding that Australian’s abandonment of its applications did not create an abandonment of its rights in the unregistered mark. Moreover, as a prophylactic rationale, the Court explained that Australian’s sales of products that might be found to have infringed the challenged registration also create a real interest and reasonable belief in harm.

Judge Wallach dissented. Although he agreed that the TTAB erred by imposing a proprietary-interest requirement to bring suit under § 1064, he disagreed that Australian properly demonstrated an alternative, legitimate interest—i.e., a belief of damage with a reasonable basis in fact. Judge Wallach would have given dispositive weight to the agreement between Australian and Naked TM in which Australian supposedly gave up any right to contest Naked TM’s rights in the mark NAKED.

Practice Note: Ultimately, although the majority and dissent disagreed about how to apply the law to the facts, Australian Therapeutic Supplies stands as a firm reminder that something less than a proprietary interest is required in order to challenge a trademark registration. How much less is a fact-specific inquiry.

© 2020 McDermott Will & Emery

For more on trademark cancellation, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law section.

Israeli Bank to Pay $30 Million for FIFA Money Laundering Violations

In 2015, the world was shocked by well-documented revelations of widespread corruption and bribery within the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”). At the time, the full extent of the FIFA money laundering scandal was unknown. This month, that 2015 revelation and the subsequent investigation has led to Bank Hapoalim (“BHBM”), an Israeli subsidiary of Swiss bank Hapoalim Ltd. (“HBS”), to pay $30 million of forfeiture and criminal fines.

In an April 30, 2020 press release, Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney of the FBI’s New York Field Office described the difficulty in interrupting and identifying large scale sophisticated financial crimes. “This announcement illustrates another aspect in the spider web of bribery, corruption and backroom deals going on behind the scenes as soccer games were played on the field,” Sweeney said. He further explained that “Bank Hapoalim admits executives looked the other way and allowed illicit activity to continue even when employees discovered the scheme and reported it.”

Chuck Blazer, an “insider” and a former top FIFA official, provided vital evidence relied upon by the United States in securing the indictments that served as a basis for allegations against BHBM. The key to unlocking the FIFA money laundering scandal is the long reach of U.S. anti-bribery and corruption laws, which allow any person, whether a U.S. person or not, to report international financial misconduct. Yesterday, the Department of Justice reported that Bank Hapoalim would forfeit over $20 million and pay nearly $10 million in fines as a penalty for almost five years of financial misconduct.

In 2015, the full extent of the fraud within the inner workings and financial institutions like BHBM and BHS that knowingly enabled these corrupt activities within FIFA remained undisclosed. BHBM’s admission that it conspired to launder money and did facilitate bribes to corrupt FIFA officials, and the resulting $30 million to be paid as a consequence, reinforces the value of whistleblower contributions in concrete terms. This case serves as ample evidence that backroom dealings around the world can be brought to light by brave individuals who are willing to share what they know with authorities.

Whistleblower laws are potent tools available to individuals regardless of nationality or citizenship. They also provide substantial monetary rewards. When information leads to a recovery, the whistleblower is entitled to a financial award of 10%-30% of the total recovery. Another critical component of the U.S. anti-fraud program is that whistleblowers can anonymously provide information and still recover the reward. In this case, a whistleblower could have a claim for almost $10 million of the funds paid by BHBM. Due to the strict rules regarding anonymity, the world may never know whether such a claim is paid. However, the possibility of such a significant award serves as an effective incentive to other potential insiders contemplating blowing the whistle on misconduct.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2020. All Rights Reserved.

For more on similar topics, see the National Law Review Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

Chinese Rail System for Restaurant Meal Delivery Patent Infringed

Perhaps showing the future of restaurants in times of social distancing, defendant Xuansu Company (炫速公司) implemented a restaurant meal delivery system to deliver food to customers using rails from kitchen to customers’ tables thereby avoiding the need for any interaction between customers and restaurant staff.  However, unfortunately for Xuansu, according to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court , the installed system infringed Chinese patent no. 101282669B and therefore awarded the exclusive licensee, Yunxiao Company (云霄公司), 1 million RMB.

Xuansu’s meal delivery system in operation

The plaintiff argued that the spiral track system installed in the SpaceLab Weightless Restaurant (Space lab失重餐厅) infringed its licensed patent and requested an injunction as well as 8 million RMB.  The defendant countered it was not infringing and used existing technology.

The Court held “Claims 1, 8, 20, 27, 58, and 59 of the patent in question include “the conveyor system transports meals and / or beverages from the back kitchen work area to the customer dining area”, auxiliary transportation devices, rail lines and customer dining areas. The infringing system has all the limitations of the claims including at least one connected dining table, a circular track, and an ordering system,  and therefore falls within the scope of protection of the plaintiff ’s patent rights.”

With respect to the defendant’s existing technology defense, the defendant claimed  US Patent No. 2216357 was prior art. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the patent publication date was October 1, 1940, which was earlier than the filing date of the patent in question, and it was prior art relative to the patent in question. After comparing the accused infringing technical solution with the prior patent, the Court found that the prior patent does not disclose the technical structure of the parallel track in the accused infringing technical solution, the circular carousel for transferring food to the table, and the guide assembly of the auxiliary conveying device. There are certain differences in the technical structure of the defendant’s system, so the defendant’s defense based on the existing technology cannot be established.

 

A static view of the restaurant meal rail system.
A static view of the restaurant meal rail system in the dining area.
Fig. 35 of the patent at issue owned by HeineMack GmbH and licensed to Yunxiao.

© 2020 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more Chinese and other nations patent laws, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law section.

Airbus to Pay Unprecedented $3.9 Billion for Multinational Bribery, FCPA Violations

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the largest deferred prosecution agreement for violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in history. Airbus SE, a French aircraft company, agreed to pay over a combined $3.9 billion to the DOJ as well as authorities in France and the UK for foreign corruption and bribery charges. The penalty is the largest of its sort and is the result of anti-fraud efforts across the three countries.

Airbus engaged in corruption for several years, offering bribes to foreign officials and misreporting to authorities to conceal the bribes. These violations of the Arms Export Control, International Traffic in Arms, and FCPA encompass activities in the United States, UK, France, and China. The crimes also include corruption in defense contracts.

According to a DOJ Press Release, Airbus will pay $527 million to the United States for the company’s violations of the International Traffic in Arms and Foreign Corrupt Practices Acts. In this case, Airbus self-reported and voluntarily cooperated with law enforcement after uncovering violations in an internal audit. It is possible an internal report initiated the audit. Cooperation and remedial measures by Airbus were taken into consideration in the settlement terms of the deferred prosecution agreement and benefitted Airbus.

International whistleblowers are crucial to the detection of large-scale corruption and fraud around the world. The SEC and DOJ rely on individuals who decide to anonymously and confidentially blow the whistle on violations of the FCPA. The FCPA allows for foreign nationals to file whistleblower claims in the US and receive an award between 10 and 30 percent of the total amount recovered by the government if a successful enforcement action follows their disclosures.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2020. All Rights Reserved.
For more bribery cases, see the National Law Review Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

Escalated Tension with Iran Heightens Cybersecurity Threat Despite Military De-Escalation

The recent conflict between the United States and Iran has heightened America’s long-time concern of an imminent, potentially lethal Iranian cyber-attack on critical infrastructure in America.   Below, is the latest information including the United States Government’s analysis on the current standing of these threats as of January 8, 2020. 

CISA Alert

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued Alert (AA20-006A) in light of “Iran’s historic use of cyber offensive activities to retaliate against perceived harm.”  In general, CISA’s Alert recommends two courses of action in the face of potential threats from Iranian actors: vulnerability mitigation and incident preparation.  The Alert specifically instructs organizations to increase awareness and vigilance, confirm reporting processes and exercise organizational response plans to prepare for a potential cyber incident.  CISA also suggests ensuring facilities are appropriately staffed with well-trained security personnel who are privy to the tactics of Iranian cyber-attacks.  Lastly, CISA recommends disabling unnecessary computer ports, monitoring network, and email traffic, patching externally facing equipment, and ensuring that backups are up to date.

Iranian Threat Profile

CISA asserts that Iranian cyber actors continually improve their offensive cyber capabilities. These actors are also increasingly willing to engage in destructive, kinetic, and even lethal cyber-attacks.  In the recent past, such threats have included disruptive cyber operations against strategic targets, including energy and telecommunications organizations. There has also been an increased interest in industrial control systems (such as SCADA) and operational technology (OT).  Refer to CISA’s Alert and the Agency’s “Increased Geopolitical Tensions and Threats” publication for specific Iranian advanced persistent threats to the nation’s cybersecurity.

Imminence of an Iranian Cyber-attack

While CISA urges vigilance and heightened prudence as it pertains to cybersecurity, DHS has been clear that there is “no information indicating a specific, credible threat to the Homeland.”  Nevertheless, the same National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin publication (dated January 4, 2020) warns that Iran maintains a robust cyber program. This program can carry out attacks with varying degrees of disruption against U.S. critical infrastructure. The bulletin further states that “an attack in the homeland may come with little to no warning.”  There is also a concern that homegrown violent extremists could capitalize on the heightened tensions to launch individual attacks.  With the ongoing tension, it is unlikely that the imminence of an Iranian cyber-attack will dissipate in the near term.

Implications

It is vital for businesses, especially those deemed critical infrastructure, to stay apprised of new advances on these matters.  Given that the Alert calls for organizations to take heightened preventative measures, it is imperative that critical infrastructure entities revisit their cybersecurity protocols and practices and adjust them accordingly.  A deeper understanding of the organizational vulnerabilities in relation to this particular threat will be imperative.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more on cybersecurity, see the Communications, Media & Internet section of the National Law Review.