Category: Uncategorized

Bronze, Shape, Glow: A Copyright Tale Destined For Broadway

Stores like Aldi are increasingly popular with UK consumers as a result of offering “copycat” products of well-known brands at drastically lower prices. However, with this rise in popularity, brand owners and creatives are being increasingly frustrated by finding their products and ideas at the mercy of imitation products.

One such aggrieved party was well-known makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury (Tilbury), who found their “Starburst” lid design and the “Powder Design” of their “Filmstar Bronze and Glow” set had provided the ‘inspiration’ for Aldi’s own “Broadway Shape and Glow” set. Tilbury filled a UK High Court claim for copyright infringement over the products shown below, with Aldi adamantly rejecting that any copyright had been infringed in their ‘inspired’ makeup set.

The main difficulty Tilbury faced was the fact that it is notoriously hard to claim copyright in mass produced 3D products as English Courts have historically been reticent to consider them “sculptures” or “works of artistic craftsmanship”.

However, Tilbury was successful in arguing that the “Starburst” lid design and the “Powder Design” on their product were original artistic works and as such the product was protected by copyright. Tilbury were able to establish their artistic copyright as “a work need only be ‘original’ in the limited sense that the author originated it by his efforts rather than slavishly copying it from the work produced by the efforts of another person.” Once establishing the existence of copyright in the artistic work the Court had little difficulty in finding that it had been substantially copied by Aldi for its “Broadway Shape and Glow” set and summary judgement was granted in Tilbury’s favour.

This case not only marks a success for the aggrieved brands and creatives who feel short changed by “Like brand inspiration” products but also provides some interesting learning opportunities for brand owners in the quest to protect their designs. Tilbury was successful in arguing copyright infringement due to the original artistic “starburst” element in its product design, the elements where the copyright lay. Brand owners may consider incorporating similar artistic elements into their products to act as a form of protection against imitators or at least provide ammunition for a copyright infringement claim should they need it.

Click here for the Judgement.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

Article by Serena Totino and  Daniel R. Cartmell of K&L Gates.
For more copyright cases see the Intellectual Property law page of the National Law Review.

What is a Holographic Will?

When a loved one passes, questions may arise as to who possesses the Decedent’s Last Will and Testament. If a formal document exists that was validly executed and was drafted by an attorney, chances are that the document is a valid Last Will and Testament unless a challenge is levied against it. What may become problematic is when a handwritten document in the testator’s own handwriting is discovered. The question then becomes if this handwritten document is a valid Last Will and Testament of the Decedent. In general, a handwritten instrument of this nature is called a Holographic Will, and may be enforceable provided certain requirements are met.

Typically, Courts often do the best they can to accept as a Last Will and Testament a writing by the Decedent where it is clear that the Decedent intended the instrument to be their Last Will and Testament. That is because the Courts would rather enforce the wishes of the Decedent than to allow the document to be invalidated based upon a mere formality. Perhaps the least formal of all Last Wills and Testaments which may be admitted to Probate is a document called a Holographic Will. These documents are relatively simple and are akin to something that a Decedent wrote on a piece of notebook paper and signed. The requirements of a Holographic Will are set forth below.

In general, pursuant to New Jersey S.A, 3B:3-2B, a Will can be considered a Holographic Will and admitted to Probate if the signature and the material portions of the document are in the Decedent’s handwriting. The Holographic Will must have all material testamentary provisions in the handwriting of the testator and also must be signed by the testator. What this means is that the provisions in the Will which dispose of the Decedent’s property must be in their own handwriting and not the handwriting of another. Further, the Will must be signed by the Decedent and not another party. As noted, this is a very simple instrument and is akin to a piece of notebook paper upon which a Decedent described how to transfer his/her property.

Provided the Will meets the requirements of a Holographic Will, it may be admitted to Probate and the Decedent’s Estate may be distributed in this regard. Different things could occur if not all the Decedent’s property is disposed of pursuant to a Holographic Will, however, that is best left for another blog. The purpose of this blog is to merely highlight one potentially type of valid Last Will and Testament which is informal in nature.

COPYRIGHT © 2019, STARK & STARK

Article by Paul W. Norris of Stark & Stark.
For more on wills & testaments, see the National Law Review Estates & Trusts law page.

OFCCP Proposes New Rule to “Ensure Religious Employers are Protected”

As previewed in the Spring regulatory agenda, the Office of Federal Compliance Contract Programs (OFCCP) has proposed a new rule to clarify aspects of a religious exemption available to federal contractors. In the proposed rule, the agency said it intends to address concerns from religious organizations that ambiguity in the exemption left them reluctant to participate in federal contracts.

The proposed rule was published August 15 in the Federal Register. OFCCP will accept public comments on the rule for 30 days, until September 16, 2019.

The rule would clarify the religious exemption in Executive Order 11246, which includes anti-discrimination obligations for federal contractors. The exemption allows religious organizations to prefer individuals of a particular religion, while still requiring adherence to other anti-discrimination provisions. The rule comes one year after OFCCP issued a Directive reminding its staff to tread lightly when dealing with religious contractors and “proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of . . . religious beliefs.”

As proposed, the rule would clarify that:

  • The exemption covers “not just churches but employers that are organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose.”

  • Religious employers can condition employment upon acceptance of, or adherence to, a religious tenet, provided that they do not discriminate based on other protected bases.

  • Define terms such as “Religion,” “Particular Religion,” and religion “As understood by the employer.”

The rule does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or LGBTQ protections. However, it does cite Masterpiece Cakeshop, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a business owner’s decision to deny service to gay customers based on the owner’s religious beliefs.  In a news release, OFCCP said it considered that case while drafting the rule, in addition to other Supreme Court cases, statutes, and executive orders.

Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected,

said Patrick Pizzella, acting U.S. Secretary of Labor.

“As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”

The proposed rule also comes at the same time it has been reported by Bloomberg Law that the Department of Justice and EEOC are seemingly taking differing positions on LGBTQ rights before the Supreme Court.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
For more on religious protections, see the National Law Review Civil Rights page.

Will Technology Return Shame to Our Society?

The sex police are out there on the streets
Make sure the pass laws are not broken

Undercover (of the Night), The Rolling Stones

So, now we know that browsing porn in “incognito” mode doesn’t prevent those sites from leaking your dirty data courtesy of the friendly folks at Google and Facebook.  93 per cent of porn sites leak user data to a third party. Of these, Google tracks about 74 per cent of the analyzed porn sites, while Oracle tracks nearly 24 per cent sites and Facebook tracks nearly 10 per cent porn sites.  Yet, despite such stats, 30 per cent of all internet traffic still relates to porn sites.

The hacker who perpetrated the enormous Capital One data beach outed herself by oversharing on GitHub.  Had she been able to keep her trap shut, we’d probably still not know that she was in our wallets.  Did she want to get caught, or was she simply unashamed of having stolen a Queen’s ransom worth of financial data?

Many have lamented that shame (along with irony, truth and proper grammar) is dead.  I disagree.  I think that shame has been on the outward leg of a boomerang trajectory fueled by technology and is accelerating on the return trip to whack us noobs in the back of our unsuspecting heads.

Technology has allowed us to do all sorts of stuff privately that we used to have to muster the gumption to do in public.  Buying Penthouse the old-fashioned way meant you had to brave the drugstore cashier, who could turn out to be a cheerleader at your high school or your Mom’s PTA friend.  Buying the Biggie Bag at Wendy’s meant enduring the disapproving stares of vegans buying salads and diet iced tea.  Let’s not even talk about ED medication or baldness cures.

All your petty vices and vanity purchases can now be indulged in the sanctity of your bedroom.  Or so you thought.  There is no free lunch, naked or otherwise, we are coming to find.  How will society respond?

Country music advises us to dance like no one is watching and to love like we’ll never get hurt. When we are alone, we can act closer to our baser instincts.  This is why privacy is protective of creativity and subversive behaviors, and why in societies without privacy, people’s behavior regresses toward the most socially acceptable responses.  As my partner Ted Claypoole wrote in Privacy in the Age of Big Data,

“We all behave differently when we know we are being watched and listened to, and the resulting change in behavior is simply a loss of freedom – the freedom to behave in a private and comfortable fashion; the freedom to allow the less socially -careful branches of our personalities to flower. Loss of privacy reduces the spectrum of choices we can make about the most important aspects of our lives.

By providing a broader range of choices, and by freeing our choices from immediate review and censure from society, privacy enables us to be creative and to make decisions about ourselves that are outside the mainstream. Privacy grants us the room to be as creative and thought-provoking as we want to be. British scholar and law dean Timothy Macklem succinctly argues that the “isolating shield of privacy enables people to develop and exchange ideas, or to foster and share activities, that the presence or even awareness of other people might stifle. For better and for worse, then, privacy is a sponsor and guardian to the creative and the subversive.”

For the past two decades we have let down our guard, exercising our most subversive and embarrassing expressions of id in what we thought was a private space. Now we see that such privacy was likely an illusion, and we feel as if we’ve been somehow gas lighted into showing our noteworthy bad behavior in the disapproving public square.

Exposure of the Ashley Madison affair-seeking population should have taught us this lesson, but it seems that each generation needs to learn in its own way.

The nerds will, inevitably, figure out how to continue to work and play largely unobserved.  But what of the rest of us?  Will the pincer attack of the advancing surveillance state and the denizens of the Dark Web bring shame back as a countervailing force to govern our behavior?  Will the next decade be marked as the New Puritanism?

Dwight Lyman Moody, a predominant 19th century evangelist, author, and publisher, famously said, “Character is what you are in the dark.”  Through the night vision goggles of technology, more and more of your neighbors can see who you really are and there are very few of us who can bear that kind of scrutiny.  Maybe Mick Jagger had it right all the way back in 1983, when he advised “Curl up baby/Keep it all out of sight.”  Undercover of the night indeed.

Copyright © 2019 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

Securing Your Pet’s Future with Estate Planning

Have you thought about what would happen to your pet in the event of your death or incapacity? Approximately two-thirds of American households own a pet, and while we have many people in our busy lives, our pets have only us. Pet owners often lament that beloved animal companions don’t live as long as we do, but they still warrant consideration in our estate plans because we don’t know what the future will bring. This is especially true for animals with longer life expectancies or higher costs of care, such as dogs, cats, horses, parrots, turtles and animals with special needs.

Without provisions for your pet in your living trust, in the short term your pet could go days at home without food and water, and could feel panicked, distressed or abandoned. In the long term, your pet could end up with someone you don’t want them to end up with, or at a shelter where he or she could be euthanized. Contrary to popular belief, informal arrangements are generally not legally enforceable and simply adding your pet to your will often isn’t enough. Your pet will need care long before your will is probated, and wills offer no ongoing control or oversight for your pet, the caregiver or funds left for your pet.

Including the following documents in your estate plan can help to ensure that someone has access to your home and authorization to care for your pets in the short term, and can ensure that you decide who will ultimately care for your pets, and how they will be cared for, if you die or become incapacitated.

Pet Trust

A pet trust is a great way to ensure that your pet is cared and provided for after your death. The pet trust may be a part of your existing trust or may be a completely separate trust. It allows you to name the caretaker of your pets and creates a fiduciary obligation on the named caretaker to care for your pet in the manner described in your trust. You will provide money for your pet to be cared for, and the trustee of the trust will disburse funds to the caretaker or directly to a service provider to pay for your pet’s care. The trustee is similarly under a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the trust funds are used only for the purposes described by your pet trust.

A pet trust also allows you to name successive caretakers in case your preferred caretaker becomes unable or unwilling to take care of your pet, for example, if he or she has a change in life circumstances (e.g. medical concerns or new family obligations, among other reasons). Without a pet trust, on the other hand, your pet becomes the legal property of the person who assumes care of the pet, and the new owner may make decisions about the pet’s future that you might disagree with. If the new owner doesn’t make any formal arrangements, your pet’s future could be in limbo if something happens to the new owner. If you want to maintain control over the succession of caregivers for your pet, a pet trust drafted by an experienced estate planning attorney is crucial and affords the best long term protection for your pet.

Durable Power of Attorney for Pet Care

The Durable Power of Attorney for Pet Care allows you to authorize someone else to seek medical care for your pet and specify to what extent the agent may act on your behalf. This document can also be used by a pet caretaker while you are away on business or vacation. Alternatively, if your own Durable Power of Attorney is “effective immediately” rather than “effective upon incapacity” (sometimes called “springing”), provisions for your pet may instead be added to your own Durable Power of Attorney.

Care Instructions

Pet care instructions will accompany the instructions in your pet trust. It is important to have these as a separate document that will be incorporated into your pet trust by reference so that you can change your pet care instructions as your pet’s needs and tastes change without having to update your trust. The pet care instructions should be reviewed and updated frequently to ensure that food requirements, medical information and emergency contacts are up to date. It’s also a good idea to include information about what your pet likes and doesn’t like, any quirks your pet may have, and generally anything else you would want someone caring for your pet to know. This versatile document, like the Durable Power of Attorney for Pet Care, can also be left with someone caring for your pet while you are away on business or vacation.

Importantly, if your pet is ever in a situation where the pet will need to be adopted to a new family, these instructions provide valuable information to the agency that will assist them in making sure a first match is successful, rather than, for example, adopting your pet to a family with young children only to have your pet returned when it becomes apparent that your pet is fearful of children. An owner’s death is stressful for an animal, so ensuring a successful first match with an adopter is imperative.

Wallet Card

This extra protection will immediately notify someone that you have pets at home if you are found to be deceased or incapacitated somewhere other than your home. Similar to adding “in case of emergency” contacts to your phone, having information in your wallet about who should be contacted to quickly provide care to your pets in such a situation can be the difference between your pets being cared for quickly or being home alone for days without food or water.

© 2019 Varnum LLP

Article by Rebecca K. Wrock of Varnum LLP.
For more on estate planning, please see the National Law Review Estates & Trusts page.

Three Ways Legal PR Specialists can Support Your Firm’s Diverse Attorneys

Law firms serving corporate clients face increasing pressure not only to make their workplaces more diverse and inclusive overall, but also to ensure that more women and people of color occupy top positions of power. Last January’s open letter from 170 general counsel serves as the most pointed example of this client demand. In it, they called on law partners to “develop, promote and retain talented and diverse attorneys”—or risk losing business to firms that take diversity and inclusion seriously.

Law firm leaders who have long paid lip service to these goals without actually changing their recruiting, professional development or performance evaluation practices face a true crisis, and mapping out a path forward that satisfies client demand, not to mention the moral imperative to create firms that better represent our society, will require a multifaceted approach. It might surprise you to learn that a sophisticated communications and media strategy is a crucial piece of that plan.

While public relations may not seem to have an obvious connection with diversity efforts, PR partners who specialize in the legal sector can provide law firm leaders with strategic, targeted support to meet their goals for equity. Effective law firm PR partners can help you:

Audit current initiatives. Most firms are doing something on diversity and inclusion, with varying results. If these initiatives are not yielding the desired outcome, it’s time to think about why. Sometimes the real problem is not a lack of effort but the flawed thinking behind a program.

For example, many initiatives intended to address gender equality target differences in women’s approach to risk-taking, negotiation, and work-life balance. While that may sound like progress, focusing on individual women’s choices furthers beliefs and stereotypes that have been debunked by decades of reliable data about fundamental gender differences. Men and women are not nearly so different as we persist in believing. They behave differently in various settings not because of inherent traits but because of organizational practices that reward and punish men and women differently. Equity initiatives that target systemic issues like parental leave and the pay gap are more likely to improve the promotion and retention of women.

As your approach to improving diversity evolves, your internal and external communications need to evolve too. PR support can help you demonstrate a more sophisticated understanding of the problems and the solutions—and show clients that you are serious about making measurable progress.

Reimagine networking. Today’s attorneys know they must provide excellent client service and master the art of business development. That typically involves some form of networking: getting out of the office to form relationships with clients and prospects, and planting the seeds for referrals and new business down the road. But old-fashioned networking—on the golf course, in the bar, at the country club—is not always a strategy that works for women, people of color, LGBTQ lawyers, and others who have come to the field from outside the old boys’ network. If you are serious about supporting your diverse attorneys, you can get proactive about professional development that helps them build their business in ways that work for them. And your PR team can help these attorneys become more active in relevant professional organizations, nominate them for awards, boost their online and social media presence, and facilitate alternative networking opportunities.

Activate a hands-on media strategy. A customized, targeted plan to promote your diverse attorneys’ immense skills and experience, as well as their innovative approaches to old problems, is key to raising their profiles and, by extension, your firm’s profile as well. PR support can help attorneys build relationships with the reporters who cover issues in their practice area so that they can become expert sources. Attorneys can partner with writers to create thought leadership articles for the publications most widely read by their clients and prospects. Nothing helps you take control of the narrative about your firm like media opportunities that highlight the skills and experience of your current and future diverse superstars.

With clients pressuring law firms to change their ways, creating a diverse and inclusive workplace has gone from a lofty goal to a strategic imperative. This necessary transformation presents leaders with significant challenges, but the good news is you don’t have to go it alone. Experts in communications and media strategy can help you take practical steps to develop and support the diverse attorneys who serve your most valued clients.  And, of course, as you would expect, PR professionals can also help you share the good news about the progress you’re making in advancing diversity and inclusion in your firm.

© 2019 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

This article is by Debra Pickett of Page 2 Communications.

Who Benefits from Self-Driving Cars?

Everyone will benefit from self-driving cars, but to varying degrees. Society, from a safety standpoint, benefits from eliminating some or all of the 34,247 motor vehicle fatalities per year. The elderly and disabled can benefit by regaining independence. Commuters can benefit by turning their dreaded drive to work into a relaxing or productive session they look forward to. But what about car manufacturers?

Car manufacturers may potentially benefit the most from self-driving cars. Assuming that they develop safe, fully autonomous robotaxis, then a car manufacturer may be able to operate the car as a robotaxi and potentially generate ten times the sale price of a vehicle over the life of the vehicle. But before this can happen, a company has to produce a fully self-driving vehicle at a reasonable cost. From a hardware standpoint, a key challenge is sensor technology. Lidar, a critical sensor for autonomous cars that can bridge the deficiencies in today’s camera and radar systems, is a significant hurdle due to its cost (e.g., up to $75,000), size, and complexity.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that lidar companies are benefiting from large investments and partnerships this year to develop advanced lidar solutions. For example, Sense Photonics recently emerged from stealth mode and made headlines with a $26 million round advertising a whole new approach that allows for an ultra-wide field of view and flexible installation. Sense Photonics claims they have a “flash” lidar which can illuminate the entire scene with one giant flash, as opposed to the scanning or sweeping systems employed by the early popular lidars systems, such as those from Velodyne. Luminar recently announced they developed a new LIDAR sensor that weighs less than 2 pounds, is the size of a soda can, and will cost as little as $500. Another upstart, Lumotive, announced that it has a solid-state sensor with metamaterial (e.g., a non-naturally occurring material that can have a negative refractive index) that includes tiny tunable components that can slow down parts of the laser beam in order to steer the beam. Steering a laser beam in this manner, according to Lumotive, may eliminate the need for mechanically moving parts. Yet another lidar company, Quanergy, touts that they have a fully solid-state automotive grade lidar based on optical phased arrays that do not include any moving parts on any scale, while offering an unparalleled level of quality and reliability.

While the timeline is uncertain, it is likely that self-driving cars will be safer than human drivers, and that auto manufacturers and technology suppliers will find opportunities to increase profits. However, this will likely bring about certain disadvantageous. Some disadvantages are obvious, such as the loss of transportation-related jobs due to automation, but there may be other less obvious disadvantages. If a car manufacturer can make more money by keeping their car, why would they sell it to consumers? Elon Musk thinks that is the case, and part of his “Master Plan” is to enable self-driving hardware to operate as autonomous robotaxis to generate revenue for Tesla itself. While autonomous robotaxis may have many benefits, the inability to buy a reasonably priced car because it is more profitable in the hands of the car manufacturer does not benefit the car shopper!

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

More more on self-driving cars, see the Utilities & Transport law page on the National Law Review.

Personal Email Management Service Settles FTC Charges over Allegedly Deceptive Statements to Consumers over Its Access and Use of Subscribers’ Email Accounts

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered into a proposed settlement with Unrollme Inc. (“Unrollme”), a free personal email management service that offers to assist consumers in managing the flood of subscription emails in their inboxes. The FTC alleged that Unrollme made certain deceptive statements to consumers, who may have had privacy concerns, to persuade them to grant the company access to their email accounts. (In re Unrolllme Inc., File No 172 3139 (FTC proposed settlement announced Aug. 8, 2019).

This settlement touches many relevant issues, including the delicate nature of online providers’ privacy practices relating to consumer data collection, the importance for consumers to comprehend the extent of data collection when signing up for and consenting to a new online service or app, and the need for downstream recipients of anonymized market data to understand how such data is collected and processed.  (See also our prior post covering an enforcement action involving user geolocation data collected from a mobile weather app).

A quick glance at headlines announcing the settlement might give the impression that the FTC found Unrollme’s entire business model unlawful or deceptive, but that is not the case.  As described below, the settlement involved only a subset of consumers who received allegedly deceptive emails to coax them into granting access to their email accounts.  The model of providing free products or services in exchange for permission to collect user information for data-driven advertising or ancillary market research remains widespread, though could face some changes when California’s CCPA consumer choice options become effective or in the event Congress passes a comprehensive data privacy law.

As part of the Unrollme registration process, users grant Unrollme access to selected personal email accounts for decluttering purposes.  However, this permission also allows Unrollme to access and scan inboxes for so-called “e-receipts” or emailed receipts from e-commerce transactions. After scanning users’ e-receipt data (which might include billing and shipping addresses and information about the purchased products or services), Unrollme’s parent company, Slice Technologies, Inc., would anonymize the data and package it into market research reports that are sold to various companies, retailers and others.  According to the FTC complaint, when some consumers declined to grant permission to their email accounts during signup, Unrollme, during the relevant time period, tried to make them reconsider by sending allegedly deceptive statements about its access (e.g, “You need to authorize us to access your emails. Don’t worry, this is just to watch for those pesky newsletters, we’ll never touch your personal stuff”).  The FTC claimed that such messages did not tell users that access to their inboxes would also be used to collect e-receipts and to package that data for sale to outside companies, and that thousands of consumers changed their minds and signed up for Unrollme.

As part of the settlement, Unrollme is prohibited from misrepresentations about the extent to which it accesses, collects, uses, stores or shares information in connection with its email management products. Unrollme must also send an email to all current users who enrolled in Unrollme after seeing the allegedly deceptive statements and explain Unrollme’s data collection and usage practices.  Unrollme is also required to delete all e-receipt data obtained from recipients who enrolled in Unrollme after seeing the challenged statements (unless Unrollme receives affirmative consent to maintain such data from the affected consumers).

In an effort at increased transparency, Unrollme’s current home page displays several links to detailed explanations of how the service collects and analyzes user data (e.g., “How we use data”).

Interestingly, this is not the first time Unrollme’s practices have been challenged, as the company faced a privacy suit over its data mining practices last year.  (See Cooper v. Slice Technologies, Inc., No. 17-7102 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2018) (dismissing a privacy suit that claimed that Unrollme did not adequately disclose to consumers the extent of its data mining practices, and finding that consumers consented to a privacy policy that expressly allowed such data collection to build market research products and services).

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.
This article is by Jeffrey D Neuburger of Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on data privacy see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

DOJ Gets Involved in Antitrust Case Against Symantec and Others Over Malware Testing Standards

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division has inserted itself into a case that questions whether the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization, Inc. (AMTSO) and some of its members are creating standards in a manner that violates antitrust laws.

AMTSO says it is exempt from such per se claims by the Standards Development Organization Act of 2004 (SDOA). Symantec Corp., an AMTSO member, says the more flexible “rule of reason” applies – that it must be proven that standards actually undermine competition, which the recommended guidelines do not.

Malware BugNSS Labs, Inc., is an Austin, Texas-based cybersecurity testing company which offers services including “data center intrusion prevention” and “threat detection analytics.”

In addition to Symantec, AMTSO members include widely recognized names like McAfee and Microsoft, as well as names known well in cybersecurity circles: CarbonBlack, CrowdStrike, FireEye, ICSA, and TrendMicro. NSS Labs also is a member, but says it is among a small number of testing service providers. The organization is dominated by product vendors who easily outvote the service providers like NSS, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test and SKD LABS, NSS maintains, claims disputed by the organization.

On Sept. 19, 2018, NSS Labs filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AMTSO, CrowdStrike (since voluntarily dismissed), Symantec, and ESET, alleging the product companies used their power in AMTSO to control the design of the malware testing standards, “actively conspiring to prevent independent testing that uncovers product deficiencies to prevent consumers from finding out about them.” The industry standard requires a group boycott that restrains trade, NSS Labs argues, hurting service providers (NSS Labs v. CrowdStrike, et al., No. 5:18-cv-05711-BLF, N.D. Calif.).

The case is before U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in Palo Alto, who has presided over a number of high-profile matters.

AMTSO moved to dismiss NSS Labs’ suit, citing its exemption from per se antitrust claims because of its status as a standards development organization (SDO). Further, it argues that the group is open to anyone and, while there are three times more vendors than testing service providers in the organization, that reflects the market itself.

On June 26, the DOJ Antitrust Division asked the court not to dismiss the case because further evidence is needed to determine whether the exemption under the SDOAA is justified.

AMTSO countered that the primary reason the case should be dismissed has “nothing to do” with the SDOAA. NSS failed to allege that AMTSO participated in any boycott, the organization says. All the group has done is “adopt a voluntary standard and foster debate about its merits, which is not illegal at all, let alone per se illegal,” the group says, adding that the Antitrust Division is asking the court to “eviscerate the SDOAA.”

Symantec first responded to the suit with a public attack on NSS Labs itself, criticizing its methodology and lack of transparency in its testing procedures, as well as the company’s technical capability and it’s “pay to play” model in conducting public tests. NSS Labs’ leadership team includes a former principal engineer in the Office of the Chief Security Architect at Cisco, a former Hewlett-Packard professional who established and managed competitive intelligence network programs, and an information systems management professional who formerly held senior management positions at Deloitte, IBM and Aon Hewitt.

On July 8, Symantec responded to the Antitrust Division’s statement of interest. It argued that the SDOAA does not provide an exemption from antitrust laws. Instead, it offers “a legislative determination that the rule of reason – not the per se rule” to standard setting activities. “That simply means the plaintiff must prove actual harm to competition, rather than relying on an inflexible rule of law,” Symantec says.

The company wrote that the government may have a point, albeit a moot one. “Symantec does not believe so, but perhaps the Division is right that there is a factual question about whether AMTSO’s membership lacks the balance the statute requires for the exclusion from per se analysis to apply,” Symantec says. Either way, the company argues, it doesn’t matter to the motions for dismissal because the per se rule does not apply.

Judge Freeman has set deadlines for disclosures, discovery, expert designations, and Daubert motions, with a trial date of Feb. 7, 2022.

Commentary

The antitrust analysis of standards setting is one of the sharpest of two-edged swords: When it works properly, it reflects a technology-driven process of reaching an industry consensus that often brings commercialization and interoperability of new technologies to market. When it is undermined, however, it reflects concerted action among competitors that agree to exclude disfavored technologies in a way that looks very much like a group boycott, a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Accordingly, the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004 (SDOAA) recognizes that, when they are functioning properly, exempting bone fide standards development organizations (SDOs) from liability for per se antitrust violations can promote the pro-competitive standard setting process. But, when do SDOs “function properly”? The answer is entirely procedural, and is embodied in the statutory definition of SDO: an organization that “incorporate[s] the attributes of openness, balance of interests, due process, an appeals process, and consensus … “

The essential claim in the complaint by NSS Labs, therefore, is that the rules and procedures followed by AMTSO do not provide sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure that the organization arrives at a pro-competitive industry consensus rather than a group boycott for the benefit of one or a few industry players dressed in the garb of standard setting.

This is a factual inquiry that cannot be countered by a legal defense that simply declares the defendant is an SDO and, therefore, immune to suit under the statute. Whether the AMTSO is an SDO under the law or not depends on how it conducts itself, the make-up of its members, and its fidelity to the procedural principles embodied in the statute. The plaintiff’s claim is that AMTSO has not followed the procedural principles required to qualify as an SDO under the Act. This is a purely factual issue and, as such, cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The DOJ should be commended for urging the court to proceed to discovery to adduce the necessary facts to distinguish between legitimate standard setting and an unlawful group boycott and it should continue to be vigilant in the face of SDOs and would-be SODs that might be tempted to use the wrong side of the standard setting sword to commit anticompetitive acts instead of the right side to produce welfare-enhancing industry consensus.

This is particularly true in vital industries like cybersecurity. Government agencies, businesses, and consumers are constantly and increasingly at risk from ever-evolving cyber threats. It is therefore imperative that the cybersecurity market remains competitive to ensure development of the most effective security products.

© MoginRubin LLP
This article was written by Jonathan Rubin and Timothy Z. LaComb of MoginRubin & edited by Tom Hagy for MoginRubin.
For more DOJ Antitrust activities, see the National Law Review Antitrust & Trade Regulation page.

Genotyping Patent Claims Do Not Escape The Reach of s. 101

In Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin GMBH & Co., the University of Berlin, App. No. 2018-1565 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 9, 2019), a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s JMOL ruling that the claims of the University’s U.S. Pat. No. 9,157,114 were patent-ineligible because they merely involved the discovery of a natural phenomenon. Interestingly, the Judges on the panel were Wallach, Hughes and Stoll, all of whom dissented from the refusal of the Fed. Cir. to rehear the Athena decision en banc. However, Athena was a straightforward “If A, then B” diagnostic test, while the claims of the ‘114 patent were not written as diagnostic claims, but as “method of genotyping” claims:

An in vivo method for genotyping a Labrador Retriever comprising:

  1. obtaining a biological sample from the Labrador Retriever,
  2. genotyping a SUV39H2 gene encoding the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO:1[;] and
  3. detecting the presence of a replacement of a nucleotide T with a nucleotide G at position 972 of SEQ ID NO:2.

This “genotyping method” detected a single point mutation in the gene that confirms the presence of a skin condition, HNPK, in the dog, that is heritable if both parents possess the mutation. It can also be used to confirm whether or not a skin condition present in the dog is HNPK.  However, the absence in the claim of a step directed to drawing a diagnostic conclusion from the presence of the mutation, while in accord with the PTO’s 2014 101 Guidance, did not save this claim from the judicial exception prohibiting claiming a law of nature. Rather, the claim jumped from a legal frying pan of Athena into the legal fire of Ariosa, that bars patenting the mere discovery or observation of a natural phenomenon:

“Similarly [to Ariosa], In re BRCA1 – & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, we concluded that the claims were directed to a patent ineligible law of nature because the claims’ “methods, directed to identification of alterations of the gene, require[d] merely comparing the patient’s gene with the wild–type gene and identifying any differences that ar[o]se”. 774 Fed.. Cir.755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In each of these cases, the end result of the process, the essence of the whole, [Ed. note: Is this some new poetic legal standard?] was a patent-ineligible concept”. [Ed. note: “concept” seems to be veering into abstract idea-land.]…Taken together, the plain language of claim 1 demonstrates that it is directed to nothing more than ‘observing or identifying’ the natural phenomenon of a mutation in the SUV39H2 gene….Thus the asserted claims are directed to a natural phenomenon at Alice step 1.”

Since the next section of the opinion is entitled “The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept”, you know this opinion is going to end badly for Labokin, the exclusive licensee of the university patent. Given that this opinion was written by the dissenters in the Athena petition for rehearing in banc, might this case turned out differently? Could the existence of the mutation in some of the SUV39H2 genes have been part of a public data base but its significance be unknown until the inventor discovered that the mutation could be correlated to the presence of HPNK? In other words, could the panel have begun by giving weight to the fact that one could observe the mutation without knowing what it means?

To get “credit” for the discovery of the utility of the mutation, claim 1, at the least, would need a mental process step that draws a diagnostic conclusion, a la Athena. Now the Athena dissenters would argue that the discovery of the utility of the correlation should provide the “inventive step” required by Alice step 2. But the Fed. Cir.’s Meriel decision precludes that outcome, since that panel ruled that the discovery of the utility of a correlation cannot meet the “inventive step” requirement. (Genetics Techs. v. Meriel is cited at page 25 of the slip opinion, but only as supporting a finding a lack of inventive step when the laboratory techniques employed to carry out the diagnostic procedure are routine, conventional, etc.)

So to get this claim past the “inventive concept” gatekeepers, it would also need to recite a positive action step of some sort. Here, the panel cites and distinguishes Vanda because it taught “a specific method of treatment for specific patients, using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome.” Remember, the claims of Vanda recited a first genotyping step, and then drawing a conclusion from that step, but didn’t stop there. This case did not give the dissenters much to work with, so they wrote a decision that Siri could have come up with. This case could at least have taken a swing at the failure of the Alice test to consider the claim elements in ordered combination. Judge Newman may yet get to write for a panel that has the nerve to distinguish Mayo and to find that an “If A, then B” diagnostic claim based on the discovery if the utility of a natural correlation is patent eligible because the steps, considered as a whole, are not conventional or well-known to the art.

© 2019 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on patent eligibility see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law page.