Back in 1992, long before Google and Facebook were founded, Rage against the Machine were raging against the state of the US education system. Some 27 years later, we are seeing global regulators raging against the relentless growth of Big Tech.
Record fines are being levied in both Europe and the US for privacy and anti-trust violations. Is this consumer protection or purely protectionism? What’s fuelling the zeal with which regulators are attacking Big Tech and can they keep pace with a world where AI, blockchain, MR and automous vehicles are about to explode into the mainstream.
Join our panellists as they debate what’s driving this shift in focus, and whether regulatory intervention represents an opportunity or a threat both to existing incumbents, or the scale-ups that want to become the next FANGs or BATs. We’ll also be discussing what this means for M&A opportunities, both for private equity and trade.
We look forward to you joining and being a part of the conversation.
June 11 – 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. BST followed by drinks and nibbles
Hogan Lovells, Atlantic House, 50 Holborn Viaduct, London, EC1A 2FG
Panellists will include:
- Richard Diffenthal – Partner, Hogan Lovells, London
- Nathaniel Gallon – Office Managing Partner, Hogan Lovells, Silicon Valley
- Stephanie Keen – Partner, Hogan Lovells, Singapore
- John Salmon – Partner, Hogan Lovells, London
- Falk Schöning – Partner, Hogan Lovells, Brussels
- Peter Watts – Partner, Hogan Lovells, London
- Sophie Winwood – Associate, Anthemis, London
To register please contact Sophie Turner.
We hope you can join us.
Click here for more information on London Tech Week 2019
We are delighted to announce that in the Legalcommunity IP&TMT Awards in Milan last night, we were awarded Best Law Firm of the Year, for the second time.
The Legalcommunity awards recognize excellence in the legal market in the field of intellectual property protection, telecommunications and media, and our widely regarded as one of the most important Italian award in the sector.
Chambers USA recently released its 2019 rankings and we are pleased to announce that Hogan Lovells’ Privacy and Cybersecurity (PaC) practice once again received Band 1 recognition by Chambers USA. Chambers noted that PaC “[r]emains one of the country’s preeminent privacy and data security practices. A highly talented roster of attorneys advising clients on major data breaches and complex policy matters across a multitude of industries, including retail, automotive and media.”
Several of our team members also were individually recognized. Marcy Wilder, PaC’s global co-lead, was ranked in Band 1 of the Privacy & Data Security: Healthcare category. Harriet Pearson was ranked Band 1 in the Privacy & Data Security category. And Chris Wolf, PaC’s former co-lead and current senior counsel, was recognized as a senior statesperson in the Privacy & Data Security category. Click here to read what Chambers USA reported about these PaC team members.
In a recent decision under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel refused to order the transfer of a Domain Name because the Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.
This decision serves as a reminder that having a trade mark does not necessarily mean that the rights holder will succeed in obtaining the transfer of a domain name, even if it is identical to such trade mark. The UDRP requires complainants to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the domain name in question was both registered and used in bad faith, and so cases where the respondent registered the domain name with the complainant’s consent (often involving ex-distributors) are usually doomed to fail. Sometimes this can result in a rather unjust result for the complainant, which is why a number of country-code Top Level Domains have decided to adopt procedures only requiring registration or use in bad faith.
The Complainant was Bialetti Industrie S.p.A. of Brescia, an Italian supplier of coffee-making equipment. The Respondent was Gary Valenti Inc. of Maspeth, New York, a former distributor of the Complainant on the American market. The Domain Name <bialettiusa.com> was registered in 1999 and previously resolved to a website mainly offering the Complainant’s products for sale. It was now resolving to a website consisting of the phrase “For Bialetti Spare Parts Click Here”, which simply led to an email address.
To be successful in a complaint under the UDRP, a complainant must satisfy the following three requirements under paragraph 4(a):
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On May 1, 2019, the National institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register regarding ongoing efforts to develop technical standards for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and the identification of priority areas for federal involvement in AI standards-related activities. Responses to the RFI are due by May 31, 2019.
The RFI comes in response to President Trump’s Executive Order to Maintain American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, which among other actions directs NIST to develop a plan to guide the federal government’s engagement with initiatives to develop technical standards for AI technology. This RFI, along with others released by this Administration, reflect a desire to promote AI technologies that enhance America’s interests and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in AI.
According to the RFI, NIST is seeking input from a variety of stakeholders, including industry, academia, and civil society, with the hopes of understanding more fully the following topics:
- The current status and plans regarding the availability, use, and development of AI technical standards and tools in support of reliable, robust, and trustworthy systems that use AI technologies;
- Needs and challenges regarding the existence, availability, use, and development of AI standards and tools; and
- The current and potential future role of Federal agencies regarding the existence, availability, use, and development of AI technical standards and tools to meet the nation’s needs.
To achieve a better understanding of the points above, NIST identifies 18 specific topics that it considers to be the “major areas” about which it needs more information. NIST categories these topics into three groupings:
- AI Technical Standards and Related Tools Development: Status and Plan
- Defining and Achieving U.S. AI Technical Standards Leadership
- Prioritizing Federal Government Engagement in AI Standardization
NIST will also be gathering information from the public through additional means, including public workshops, and it plans to release the draft Plan for public comment. It has also published a page dedicated to the AI Standards effort.
Visit the Hogan Lovells Artificial Intelligence Topic Center for notable developments and thought leadership on the promises and perils of artificial intelligence.
Although South Africa’s first comprehensive piece of data protection legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), was originally signed into law in November 2013, the substantive provisions of the law have not yet taken legal effect. That is likely to change since South Africa’s data protection authority, the Information Regulator, published the final draft of its POPIA regulations in December 2018.
Although the Information Regulator has not indicated exactly when those regulations will become final, it has indicated that the full implementation of POPIA should follow shortly thereafter. Section 114 of POPIA provides that once the law is fully implemented, its substantive provisions will become enforceable after a one-year transitional period. So, to the extent that the POPIA Regulations are finalized at some point in 2019, its substantive provisions will become enforceable one year later in 2020.
On 23 April 2019 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) prospective payment system proposed rule for fiscal year (FY) 2020 (Proposed Rule), to be published in the Federal Register on 3 May 2019.
In addition to the annual updates made to the IPPS and the LTCH each year as part of this Proposed Rule, CMS also proposes or asks for information about a number of changes to the new technology add-on payments (NTAPs) under the IPPS, including:
- Changes to increase the calculated add-on payment for devices with NTAP designation.
- A new NTAP pathway for devices that are part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Breakthrough Devices Program.
- A request for comment on CMS’ approach to reviewing the substantial clinical improvement criterion for NTAP or transitional pass-through payment applications under the IPPS and outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS), respectively.
Read More: CMS proposes changes to new-technology add-on payment amounts and criteria in the inpatient prospective payment system proposed rule for FY 2020
On 19 March 2019, the European Union adopted Regulation (eu) 2019/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004, otherwise known as the .eu Regulation.
As its name indicates, the Regulation repeals its predecessors which were considered no longer adapted to the market, the political and legislative context and the online environment. With this Regulation the European Union has sought to future-proof the regulatory framework, in light of the fast-changing environment, and to promote the digital single market.
The Regulation also seeks to strengthen collaboration between the Registry, the European Union Intellectual Property Office and other EU agencies in order to combat speculative and abusive domain name registrations and to provide simple administrative procedures for small and medium enterprises.
Clinical trials in the EU include the collection of sensitive health data from patients. Trial sponsors are obliged to reconcile their respect of regulations governing data protection with regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials. The GDPR¹ could not fully harmonize these rules since this area is already heavily regulated by public health regulations that vary between EU Member States. One of the most disconcerting areas of divergence between EU Member States is the different national positions on whether patient consent is a valid legal ground for processing personal data in clinical trials.
Because clinical trials involve the use of “data concerning health,” controllers must cumulatively respect both the provisions of Article 6 GDPR governing the basis on which data may lawfully be processed and the conditions provided in Article 9 GDPR governing the processing of special categories of personal data, including data concerning health. A basic legal requirement that pharmaceutical and medical device companies conducting clinical trials must always respect when conducting a clinical trial is the obligation to obtain patients’ consent to their participation for clinical trials.
A number of legislative proposals seeking to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) are moving forward following an April 23 hearing before the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection in which the bills were approved. The bills will now advance to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee before being voted on by the full Assembly and potentially advancing to the California Senate for consideration.