Ping Service
Feedback Forms

Cyber Security Indeed: Derivative Action Dismissed Where Board Proactively Addressed Cyber Risks and Exposures

In the first of what is certain to become a cottage industry of derivative lawsuits involving alleged inadequate cybersecurity and deficient public disclosures, on October 20, 2014, a New Jersey federal court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Wyndham Worldwide Corporation’s directors and officers based on its finding that Wyndham’s Board has duly considered and dismissed the plaintiff’s demand that the company sue its directors and officers.  Palkon v. Holmes, et al, Case 2:14-cv-01234-SRC-CLW.

In Palkon, plaintiff presented the demand following a series of three security breaches through which hackers obtained personal information of over 600,000 Wyndham customers. (This is the same series of events that gave rise to the well-known lawsuit where Wyndham is challenging the FTC’s jurisdiction).

Read the rest of this entry »

ALJ Denies LabMD’s Motion for Sanctions Against the FTC

Although the litigation between LabMD and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues in the Eleventh Circuit, an administrative law judge has resolved one battle between the two entities. Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell recently issued an order denying LabMD’s motion for sanctions against the FTC.

In 2009, information security firm Tiversa, Inc. notified the FTC that a file containing the personal information of over 9,300 LabMD customers (the “1718 file”) was available in a LimeWire sharing folder installed on a LabMD computer. The file was allegedly found on several LabMD IP addresses. LabMD alleged that Tiversa stole the file from a LabMD workstation in Atlanta, Georgia, and further claimed that the FTC never independently investigated the alleged theft or verified the origin or chain of custody for the 1718 file before commencing its action against LabMD.

Moreover, LabMD alleged an improper relationship between the FTC and Tiversa in that Tiversa benefitted financially from referring companies to the FTC for investigation. Specifically, LabMD alleged that many targets of FTC enforcement actions later became Tiversa clients. Accordingly, LabMD sought an order dismissing the FTC action with prejudice and awarding it attorney fees and costs.

Read the rest of this entry »

P.F. Chang’s CGL Insurer Seeks Declaratory Judgement on Data Breach Claim

P.F. Chang’s China Bistro made headlines when it recently reported that 33 of its restaurant locations spanning 18 states suffered a data breach in connection with the restaurant’s point-of-sale payment systems. While the breach was reported in the news media in June of this year, the unlawful access to its systems may have begun months prior to its discovery.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois and a third was filed in the Western District of Washington. These suits allege that personal information of as many as seven million customers may have been stolen as part of the breach.

On notice of these three putative class actions, on October 10, 2014, Travelers Indemnity Company filed a four-count declaratory judgment action in the District Court of Connecticut seeking a declaration that two commercial general liability (CGL) policies issued to P.F. Chang’s in 2013 and 2014 do not afford coverage for the data breach litigation.

Read the rest of this entry »

California District Court Finds Threat of Future Harm Sufficient to Confer Article III Standing in Data Breach Action

In a departure from the mounting body of case law finding that the “increased risk of future harm” is insufficient to confer Article III standing on victims of a data breach, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently found that such potential future harm is sufficient to allow a putative class of plaintiffs to proceed in Federal Court.

In re Adobe Sys. Privacy Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124126 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014), involves various claims against Defendant Adobe Systems, Inc. (“Adobe”) arising out of an intrusion into Adobe’s computer network in 2013 and the resulting data breach. According to Plaintiffs, in July 2013, hackers gained unauthorized access to Adobe’s servers and spent several weeks inside Adobe’s network without being detected. Once the breach was eventually detected, Adobe announced that the hackers accessed the personal information of at least 38 million customers, including names, login IDs, passwords, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and mailing and e-mail addresses. Adobe subsequently disclosed that the hackers were able to use Adobe’s systems to decrypt customers’ credit card numbers, which had been stored in an encrypted form.

Read the rest of this entry »

California Amends Data Breach Law

On September 30, 2014, California joined the trend and enacted amendments to its data security laws.

First, the new law expands its scope to third-party service providers and businesses that do not just “own or license personal information,” but merely “maintain” that data. Previously, the California statute mandating businesses to “implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices” only applied to businesses that “own or license personal information.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Congress Proposes Bill Protecting Student Data

While the protection of private data contained within student records is not a new concern, advances in technology and the accompanying headlines of data breach have caused Congress to reconsider the issue.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) currently protects against the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) contained within student records. PII includes direct identifying information, such as a student’s name, as well as indirect identifying information, such as date or place of birth.

The role computers and networks play in the operation of schools is profound. Like many industries, the issue of data storage for schools is a significant aspect of the information technology infrastructure. Increasingly, schools (mostly public enterprises) migrate and store data in the Cloud, thus placing PII in the hands of third party (mostly private) business associates. Schools also rely on on-line text books, on-line web applications, and software as a service. Much of this did not exist when President Ford signed FERPA into law in 1974. One survey showed only 25 percent of districts notify parents that its students’ data interfaces with the Cloud.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tangible Property Coverage: The Next Frontier in the Tech Insurance Market

In the beginning

The emergence of the Internet as a business platform at the end of the nineties also announced the arrival of new risks to organizations. In those early days, there was a widely held belief that the primary concern was In the beginning.

The emergence of the Internet as a business platform at the end of the nineties also announced the arrival of new risks to organizations. In those early days, there was a widely held belief that the primary concern was operational, amidst concerns about the impact of a computer virus or the actions of a “Hacker”, a new term to many of us then.

Despite the lack of actuarial data, a few underwriters in the US and London started to devise solutions to indemnify business interruption losses and the costs to restore compromised data. Commonly known as “Hacker Insurance”, we found few buyers beyond large US banks. Clients found the underwriting process both intrusive and expensive as insurers demanded onsite security audits.

On July 1st 2003 everything changed.

Read the rest of this entry »

CA Court of Appeal: CMIA Is Not All-Inclusive

customLogo.gifIn its recent decision in Eisenhower Medical Center v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 4th 430 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, had occasion to consider whether a medical facility’s disclosure of information concerning a patient that does not contain the medical treatment or history of the patient violates California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82), which requires notification to consumers when security systems are breached.

On March 11, 2011, a computer was stolen from Eisenhower Medical Center (“EMC”) that contained an index of over 500,000 persons to whom EMC had assigned a clerical record number.  The records dated back to the 1980’s.  The information on the index was limited to each person’s name, medical record number, age, date of birth, and the last four digits of the person’s Social Security number.  EMC subsequently advised the patients of the theft, and a number of those individuals filed suit.  The suit was styled as a putative class action and sought nominal damages of $1,000 for EMC’s alleged violations of the CMIA.  The plaintiffs also included a cause of action for violation of the Consumer Records Act (“CRA”).

Read the rest of this entry »

Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal for the FTC v. Wyndham Matter

TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP’s Cyber Law Blog previously discussed various aspects of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) action filed against Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Recent developments in the FTC action carry implications for cyber liability and how companies handle cyber security and data breaches.

On April 7, 2014, US District Judge Esther Salas denied Wyndham’s motion to dismiss directly challenging the FTC’s authority to regulate cyber security practices. Wyndham’s motion asserted that Congress had not delegated such authority to the FTC under its Section 5 powers, and even if it did, the FTC failed to publish rules or regulations providing companies fair notice of the protections expected and “legal standards” to be enforced by the FTC.

At the time, Judge Salas unequivocally ruled in favor of the FTC’s authority. However, on June 23, 2014, the Court granted Wyndham’s application and certified the matter for an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal involves two questions of law: (1) whether the FTC can bring an unfairness claim involving data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act and (2) whether the FTC must formally promulgate regulations before bringing its unfairness claim under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Interlocutory appeals are rarely granted, are in the complete discretion of the trial court, and must meet certain requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), including whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the matter. While Judge Salas’s denial of Wyndham’s motion to dismiss was certain as to the FTC’s Section 5 authority and the issue of fair notice, the Order certifying the matter for interlocutory appeal on the other hand, acknowledged Wyndham’s “statutory authority and fair-notice challenges confront this Court with novel, complex statutory interpretation issues that give rise to a substantial ground for difference of opinion.”

The Court further acknowledged that it was dealing with an issue of first impression with “nationwide significance… which indisputably affects consumers and businesses in a climate where we collectively struggle to maintain privacy while enjoying the benefits of the digital age.”
As a result, the Third Circuit will be the first major appellate court to weigh in on the issue of whether the FTC has authority to regulate cyber security practices, and if so whether those regulations require specific legal standards and fair notice to those within the scope of FTC’s enforcement.

- See more at: http://www.traublieberman.com/cyber-law/2014/0710/4801/#sthash.hgIolyzW.dpuf

PDF Editor    Send article as PDF   

Cyber Liability Insurance: The Value of an Educated Broker in the Age of E-Commerce

I first published this article in 2010. Surprisingly, its as relevant today – perhaps even more relevant – than it was four years ago.

Rick

Introduction: Insurance Products for Cyber Risks

Media reports of cyber intrusions, data thefts and computer system malfunctions involving large, high-profile companies such as Sony PlayStation, Citigroup and Lockheed’s Security Vendor, RSA, have led a rapidly growing number of companies to consider the necessity of insurance coverage for technology and cyber privacy risks. As these businesses become more reliant on electronic communication and data storage, they are also developing a heightened awareness that an unauthorized intrusion could endanger their tangible and intangible assets (including their intellectual property) and, in many cases, their reputations and abilities to conduct business. Consequently, prospective policyholders are becoming more cognizant of the necessity for insurance covering these exposures.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Insurance Industry and ICANN: The Next Frontier

icann-flagsWe all take the Internet for granted.  Short of a power outage taking down phone lines, cell towers and satellite transmissions, the Internet will always be there. Like death and taxes, you can count on it.

Not that the paradigm will change any time soon, but at some point, it might.

On March 14 and 17, 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported on the decision by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”), part of the Commerce Department, to cede control of the Internet from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) (a U.S. non-profit) to an organization of multinational stakeholders.

As readers of Cyberinquirer, know, ICANN is responsible for managing the core of the Internet by distributing domain names and Web addresses.  It’s been doing so since 1998.

Read the rest of this entry »

New York Court to Sony: No Personal Injury Coverage for You!

As many of us have been saying since the advent of cyber insurance coverage, cyber policies potentially cover privacy risks and exposures, not Commercial General Liability policies, be it under a property damage or a personal/advertising injury insuring agreement.  In other words, policyholders and their brokers would be mistaken if they deluded themselves into thinking that a standard base CGL policy’s personal injury/advertising injury coverage applies to a typical cyber breach where personally identifiable information is extracted.  Sadly, my good friend Scott Godes falls into this category.

On February 21, 2014, , Judge Jeffrey K. Oing, of the New York Supreme Court, Manhattan Commercial Division ratified this maxim by denying personal injury coverage to Sony for the 2011 breach and theft of personal information from its PS3 gaming platform, among other databases.  Zurich American Insurance Company v. Sony Corporation of America, Index No. 651982/2011 (N.Y. Supreme, filed 7/20/2011). See Complaint here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cyber class-action litigation: Insurers’ next significant spend?

The following article was first published by my friends at Advisen for their new Cyber Risk Network. For those who haven’t already done so, check it out.

Rick

Virtually every reader is well aware of the decision from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit finding that claims by class-action plaintiffs for “mitigation damages” arising from a cyber breach were viable. Anderson v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 659 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2011).

There, the court held under Maine law that, in the abstract, certain claimants whose financial information was stolen could recover certain costs incurred in a reasonable effort to mitigate.

Hannaford Brothers is an extreme outlier in the world of cyber class-action litigation. And—as it should have in my view—the case effectively ended when the District Court, on remand, declined to certify the putative class in light of the claimants’ failure to establish that common issues of law and fact “predominate” over individual issues, a predicate to class certification.

Read the rest of this entry »

Risk Based Security’s 2013 Data Breach QuickView Report

The following was provided by my friend Jake Kouns of Risk Based Security, a leading-edge security and threat intelligence company. that provides comprehensive vulnerability and data breach intelligence services.   Thanks Jake.

Rick

Risk Based SecurityWe  are pleased to release our Data Breach Quick view report that shows 2013 broke the previous all-time record for the number of exposed records caused by reported data breach incidents.  The 2,164 incidents reported during 2013 exposed over 822 million records, nearly doubling the previous highest year on record (2011).

Although overshadowed by the number of exposed records, 2013 is also ranked #2 in total reported  data breach incidents, just behind 2012. “When you analyze the data breach activity in 2013 it’s hard to  find any bright-side, said Barry Kouns, CEO of Risk Based Security. “Four of the “Top 10” data breaches all time, were reported in 2013, including the top spot. “

Read the rest of this entry »

The Target Breach: Show Me The Insurance

The following article was first published by the Advisen Cyber Risk Network. If you haven’t checked it out, you should. Its extremely informative. And I’ll be a regular contributor.

Cheers.

Rick

By now, almost everyone has read or heard about – or even been directly impacted by – the theft of financial data relating to over 40 million credit and debit cards used at Target stores in November and December last year.

However, the insurance coverage aspects of the breach have generally flown under the radar.

To a company like Target (or whoever is affected by the next breach), the availability of insurance coverage is an important component of crisis management and remediation, litigation and regulatory investigation strategies, and reputational/brand/lost income protection.

So assuming Target has purchased potentially applicable insurance products, what coverages might apply?  And how might they respond?

At a minimum, it can be expected that Target will investigate the availability of coverage under four separate lines of insurance: Cyber, privacy and technology (CPT); general liability; crime/fidelity and; directors and officers liability policies.

Read the rest of this entry »

Snowden Affair Fuels the Conflict for Control of the Internet

The following article, written by my friend Vince Vitkowsky, originally appeared in Advisen Front Page News, Cyber Edition, on November 7, 2013. Vince is an attorney in private practice who specializes in litigation, arbitration, and matters at the intersection of insurance, cybersecurity, and public policy.  He can be reached at vvitkowsky@gmail.com.

Cheers.

Rick

20130711_internet10-1There is a serious conflict over future control of the Internet, as nations seek to influence its delivery mechanisms, protocols, economics, security, content, and governance.  Until now, key functions have been managed through a multi-stakeholder approach, using technical organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), with oversight conducted by the US.  But the last several years have seen a growing challenge to this system and the US role.  Now a tipping point may have been reached.  The public disclosures of the scope of the NSA surveillance programs have led to widespread international criticism, focusing and catalyzing the call for changes in Internet governance.  The Internet is the most dynamic engine for economic growth in the world today, as well as the vital mechanism for dissemination of ideas.  So the outcome of the conflict for control will have profoundly important commercial and political consequences.

Key developments.  The pressure for change came into sharp focus in Dubai in December 2012, at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), which was held by the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU).  There, the US struggled unsuccessfully against the movement for greater international control.  It urged that the current system, based around ICANN and other nongovernmental organizations, be preserved.  It made every possible effort to deny that regulation of any aspect the Internet was within the authority of the ITU.  But that view was repudiated by a majority of nations, and the WCIT ended in acrimonious collapse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cyber Security and Data Breaches: Why Directors and Officers Should Be Concerned

Following is an excerpt from the leading chapter in Willis London’s Executive Risks: A Boardroom Guide 2012/2013. If you would like to read the entire chapter, please contact me at rbortnick@cpmy.com. A complete copy will be emailed upon request. Cheers. Rick

sec1

Cyber insurance has become a necessity. Every company that maintains, houses or moves sensitive information is at risk of a data breach, primarily due to the growth and increased sophistication of hackers, malicious software and, most recently, ‘hacktavists’. Even mere employee negligence can lead to a data breach. High-profile companies such as Sony can attest that cyber-intrusions can lead to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in legal exposure.

Equally troublesome, our expanding online society has introduced new financial risks and exposures that may not be covered under general and professional liability insurance products, including standard directors’ and officers’ (D&O) policies. As such, corporate directors and officers, and their risk-management professionals, must ensure that they buy appropriately tailored policies that provide protection against the rapidly expanding risks to which they could be vulnerable, both personally and professionally.

The risks and costs of a data breach

It has become known as the Year of the Breach: in 2011, companies of all sizes experienced malicious intrusions or employee negligence that affected their operations and/or businesses. For example, in April 2011, computer hacktavists unlawfully accessed the Sony PlayStation Network (PSN) and obtained the personal and financial information of roughly 77 million PSN users. Since then, Sony and its insurers likely have spent tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to remedy and mitigate the resulting security and commercial crises — an amount that grows by the day as lawyers prosecute class action lawsuits on behalf of allegedly affected users whose personal and financial information was improperly accessed.

Equally problematic for Sony, it has been sued by its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, which sought to avoid coverage by arguing that its general liability policies do not and never were intended to cover data breaches.

The TJX Companies also fell victim to a cyber intrusion that security experts predict will have long-term costs of between US$4 billion and US$8 billion in fines, legal fees, notification expenses and brand impairment. In the TJX case, the retail group reported that 45.6 million credit and debit card numbers were stolen from one of its systems during the period July 2005 to January 2007. Of critical import, the January 2007 intrusion occurred after TJX already had knowledge of the initial breaches.

Of course, big corporations are not the only entities that are vulnerable to hackers and hacktavisits; indeed, half of all companies that have experienced data breaches have fewer than 1,000 employees.

 

PDF Converter    Send article as PDF   

Cyber, Privacy and Technology Best Practices and Reputational Harm: Why Legal Professionals Need a Lawyer’s Advice, Counsel and Privileges

BabyB_LPlate_improvedIntroduction

Lawyers, like other professionals, often have access to their clients’ personal and financial details. At the same time, they may possess comparable information about their clients’ clients (such as when a lawyer represents a healthcare company). As a result, lawyers are at risk for being sued if and when something happens to that information – such as when a laptop or cell phone is misplaced or stolen or a hacker breaches a law firm or client’s systems and accesses the client’s personally identifiable, health care, and/or confidential information.
The most prudent way to avoid such lawsuits and minimize their impact is to create and implement cyber, privacy and technology (“CPT”) best practices before something goes wrong. In most cases, this would include best practices training and education as well as the purchase of dedicated CPT-specific insurance. This article discusses why lawyers are at risk, how to create and implement best practices, and the advantages of CBT insurance coverage rather than (mistakenly) relying on professional errors and omissions and/or general liability coverage in the event of a CPT incident.

Executive Summary

An attorney’s reputation is his and her lifeblood. Indeed, reputation translates to the bottom line. For better or worse.
And, of course, reputation is, in large part, predicated on the quality, timeliness and cost-effectiveness of the services being provided. So too, it is incumbent that an attorney avoid negative commentary (or embarrassing revelations) through the pervasive and ubiquitous medium of social media. As a corollary, attorneys, like others, must be sensitive to the loss of customer goodwill, whether measured by turnover, client retention or other intangible assets.

Regardless of whether your clients are the Fortune 500, middle-market companies or small entrepreneurs, an attorneys’ clients – and by extension, the attorney himself and herself (to the extent the attorney holds personal, health or commercial information) – are at risk of losing personally identifiable information (“PII”), personal health information (“PHI”) and/or confidential commercial information (“CCI”). It doesn’t matter whether the harm is attributable to malicious activity or simple employee or third-party negligence. It’s the effect that is the focus, not necessarily the cause (although that too factors into the analysis).

In many cases, the effect of a cyber incident could be devastating, if not fatal, to an attorney’s reputation. And, by extension, his or her practice’s economic viability.
It is almost axiomatic to say that “best practices” are among the most important strategies employed by attorneys and other professionals. Just as we counsel clients to use best practices with respect to their operations, so too, we, as professionals, should be well-trained on the scope and extent of best practices in the subject matter presented, including, in particular, CPT risks and exposures, which, to no surprise, are palpable and potentially devastating.

In the CPT context, among others, best practices counseling should be provided by an attorney. Unlike non-lawyers, attorneys bring with them the attorney-client privilege and work product protection. Although vendors and IT specialists can promote themselves as having the appropriate knowledge and training to teach and implement best practices, they do possess the critical protections afforded by the attorney-client relationship. In a relatively new space like CPT, where the law is uncertain and developing, the privileges become even more important, as many attorneys are just at the start of the learning curve.

To continue reading, please contact me at rbortnick@cpmy.com. A complete copy will be emailed upon request. Cheers. Rick

PDF24 Creator    Send article as PDF   

Canada Update: The Tort of “Intrusion upon Seclusion”

The following was written by my friend Patrick Cruikshank, Underwriting Manager, Specialty Risk – Professional Liability at Northbridge Insurance in Toronto. Thanks to Patrick for his contribution. Relevant articles are always welcome for publication.

Rick

canada-flag-stereotypesIn the 2012 case of Jones v. Tsige, the Ontario Court of Appeal established the new tort of invasion of privacy.  For some, this privacy tort has opened a Pandora’s Box.  For others, it’s considered legal progress in the modern technological world.

Sandra Jones and Winnie Tsige were employees of the Bank of Montreal (BMO).  They worked at different branches and did not know each other.  Tsige was in an intimate relationship with Jones’ ex-husband.

Over a period of 4 years, Tsige used her workplace computer to gain access to Jones’ personally identifiable information and personal financial information 174 times.  Tsige did not disseminate this information.

When Jones discovered this unauthorized access, she made a formal complaint to her employer, who upon investigation determined that Tsige had accessed Jones’ information and had no legitimate reason to do so.  Jones subsequently sued Tsige for invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary duty.  She sought $70,000 in general damages plus $20,000 in punitive damages.

Jones’ claim was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court because there was no law in Ontario that recognized an invasion of privacy tort.

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and granted summary judgment in favor of Jones.

Read the rest of this entry »

Asia-Pacific Cyber Law Risks and Developments

We first published the following White Paper extract in October 2011. While the White Paper might be somewhat dated (and therefore will be refreshed shortly), it remains relevant for our friends interested in learning the basics of Asia Pacific cyber/privacy law. Please let me know if you’d like to see the entire paper. Rick

I. Introduction

The Internet facilitates the widespread and instantaneous flow of information across international borders. While the advent of this method of transnational communication has truly created a “global economy,” at the same time, it has engendered problems for companies and their insurers which seek to assess risk and implement information safeguards, particularly in the face of divergent data privacy laws which vary from region to region or may not even exist in certain jurisdictions. The Asia-Pacific region typifies such a lack of uniformity.

At the same time, the emerging economies in this rapidly growing part of the world have generated promising targets for computer hackers. 75% of Asia-Pacific enterprises have experienced cyber attacks in the past 12 months. Perhaps not surprisingly, a 2010 study by Symantec reported that almost half of all Asia-Pacific-based businesses (and 67% in Singapore) ranked cyber risk and information security as their top concern—more so than natural disasters, terrorism, and traditional crime combined. Cyber attacks and data breaches are on the radar of CEOs and risk managers for good reason: the average cost for a large company to remediate a data breach in Australia increased to nearly $2 million in 2010, which is slightly up from 2009. See Ponemon Institute/Symantec 2010 Annual Study: Australian Cost of a Data Breach (May 2011).

Notwithstanding the prevalence of such attacks, it is far more likely that a cyber security program is managed as a part of a company’s traditional business risks, with traditional coverages being contorted to cover various components of cyber risk (i.e. property loss, liability to third-parties, business interruption, etc.), rather than by way of a dedicated cyber-specific insurance program. Still, in light of recent developments, it is virtually certain that companies soon will begin looking to transfer such risk via more efficient and targeted technology insurance forms and policies

Read the rest of this entry »

Canadians More Exposed Than One Would Think

canada-flag-stereotypesOkay. Let’s start with the obvious. No, this has nothing to do with Canadian citizens and immigrants behaving badly, although that may be a topic for a future post.

What we’re talking about is the prevalence of cyber-related incidents and the resulting fallout among Canadian-based companies. And the numbers may surprise you.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Posts have Come Back… To Cyberinquirer


Since last we visited, your humble Publisher has moved on to the Law Offices of Richard J. Bortnick, where I am Managing Director (very European, if I do say so myself). A number of dedicated readers and friends (you know who you are) have asked what had become of me and why my old email address was no longer effective.

The answer my friend (apologies to Peter, Paul and Mary) is the Law Offices of Richard J. Bortnick. At the risk of having this viewed as attorney advertising, I will stop there other than to say I also will be signing as a free agent with a Consulting Firm to be named later (but not much later).

So, please feel free to contact me if you want to catch up, engage in intellectual banter (with the exception of Philadelphia sports, where the banter will all be negative) or have some worthwhile humor you’d like to pass along (although it can’t be as good as the material I get from my good friend Jeff). My new email address is rjbortnick@comcast.net (at least for the short term… stay tuned on that too).

Its good to be back. And thanks for all of your kind wishes.

Rick

PDF Creator    Send article as PDF   

Cyber Liability Insurance: Ensuring Adequate Coverage in the Age of E-Commerce

I. Introduction: Insurance Products for Cyber Risks

Increasing reports of cyber intrusions, data theft and computer system malfunctions have led a rapidly-growing number of companies to purchase insurance coverage to protect themselves from technology and cyber privacy risks. Indeed, as our technology-driven economy continues to evolve and businesses become more reliant on electronic communication and data storage, they are developing a heightened awareness that an unauthorized intrusion could endanger their tangible and intangible assets (including their intellectual property) and, in many cases, their reputations and abilities to conduct business. As such, prospective policyholders are becoming more cognizant of the necessity for insurance covering such growing exposures.

Read the rest of this entry »

Who Owns Patient Data in Electronic Health Records?

Following is a guest post by Doug Pollack, CIPP/US, chief strategy officer at ID Experts, a leading provider of healthcare privacy and data breach solutions. The article explores the thorny issue of “ownership” as it applies to patient data stored in and shared by electronic health record systems.

Cheers.

Rick

I recently began exploring the question of who, or what entity, owns the data that is incorporated in our patient electronic health records (EHRs). I originally began thinking about this because I was imagining that the “owner” would be responsible under circumstances where there was an unauthorized disclosure of such protected health information (PHI), in other words a data breach. It seemed like such a simple question, I had assumed I would find the answer to be just as straightforward. As it turns out, many have pondered this question and suggest that the question of “ownership” of medical data may be a misplaced one, an unanswerable question, and that the more relevant question is what control the patient, and other members of the health ecosystem, have relative to accessing, modifying, appending and transmission of this data. In other words, how is patient privacy provided for within the new EHR universe?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Queen v. Cole: Privacy Protection for Employer-Issued Equipment in Canada

The recent decision The Queen v. Cole by the Supreme Court of Canada touches upon interesting issues regarding information privacy in the digital age.

The facts are simple. An information technologist working at the same high school as Mr. Cole, a teacher, remotely accessed Cole’s history of internet access and one of his drives and found a hidden file which contained nude photographs of a student. The photographs and internet file were copied onto a disc and given to the police, which determined that a search warrant was unnecessary. Cole was subsequently charged with possession of child pornography and fraudulently obtaining data from another computer hard drive. The trial judge excluded the computer material under Sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter. In overturning the decision, the summary conviction appeal court found no breach of Section 8. This decision was set aside by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which concluded that the evidence of the disc containing the temporary internet files and the laptop computer and its mirror image was excluded. A 6-1 majority ruling by the Supreme Court concluded that the police infringed upon Cole’s rights but upheld the Court of Appeals’ finding that the evidence should not have been excluded from trial.

Read the rest of this entry »

State Privacy Laws Evolve While Congress Campaigns

New legislation governing data breaches and privacy issues is popping up in states across the country. Most recently, Connecticut, Vermont, and Illinois have enacted new laws in these areas.

Connecticut

At long last, the proposed legislation requiring a data breach to be reported has become law in Connecticut. Section 369-701b was unable to move its way through the 2012 General Session of the Connecticut Legislature, but it was recently passed as part of the Connecticut General Assembly’s Special Session as an attachment of the Budget Bill.

Read the rest of this entry »

Data Privacy and Unauthorized Non-Hackers: the Rise and Risk of Accountability and Breach Notifications in Canada

Recent unauthorized access to British Columbia Institute of Technology’s computer network, which contained personal medical information of approximately 12,680 individuals, is yet another reminder of risks of exposure to data breaches. That none of the data on BCIT’s computer network was compromised or misused is reflective of a low-profile non-hacker intrusion, and of the ease with which computer networks can be infiltrated. Indeed, a sophisticated hacker would know better than to leave massive amounts of data, rightly labeled by some as the “oil” of the 21st century, uncompromised. More curious than uncompromised data, however, is BCIT’s notification in the absence of an actual data breach, and mandatory breach notification provisions under B.C. privacy law.

Read the rest of this entry »

First Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Bank’s Online Security Measures “Commercially Unreasonable” in Landmark Decision

In a landmark decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in Patco Construction Company, Inc. v. People’s United Bank, No. 11-2031 (1st Cir. July 3, 2012) that People’s United Bank (d/b/a Ocean Bank) was required to reimburse its customer, PATCO Construction Co., for approximately $580,000 which had been stolen from PATCO’S bank account. In so doing, the Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maine which had granted summary judgment in the bank’s favor.

The dispute arose when Ocean Bank authorized six fraudulent withdrawals over seven days from an online account held by PATCO. While the bank’s security system flagged each one of the transactions as “high risk” because they were inconsistent with the timing, value, and geographic location of PATCO’s regular payment orders, the bank’s security system did not notify PATCO of this information and allowed the payments to go through. In light of this omission, PATCO sued, alleging that Ocean Bank should bear responsibility for the loss because its security system was not “commercially reasonable” under the Uniform Commercial Code, as codified under Maine Law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Past the Point of No Return: Jones v. Tsige and the “New” Tort of Invasion of Privacy in Canada

Jeremy Bentham used to refer to the common law as the “dog law”. As he explains it, “whenever your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, and then beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way the judges make law for you and me.” .

Insofar as the tort of invasion of privacy in Canada is concerned, Jeremy Bentham was arguably right. Aside from the province of Quebec, which is governed by a civil law system, and a few other provinces in Canada which have benefited from a statutorily enacted tort of invasion of privacy, lower Courts have been divided over the existence of a free-standing tort of invasion of privacy at common law. The recent decision Jones v. Tsige (2012) by the Ontario Court of Appeal is the first to confirm that what used to be an embryonic tort of invasion of privacy is now alive and well in Canada

Read the rest of this entry »

Agreement between the US, NATO, and Australia on Cyber Security

The US and Australia have a longstanding agreement to back each other up in case of physical enemy attack, but now have moved that agreement to the arena of cyber-attack as well. With Australia’s history of cyber-attacks well known, such as an attack two years ago that brought down Australia’s Parliament’s website, the country cannot afford to ignore cyber security any longer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Insurers: Assert Your Subrogation Rights

The following column was first published in the second issue of Advisen’s Cyber Liability Journal (here). I will republish my future columns in coming months. In the meantime, you can subscribe to the Journal at http://corner.advisen.com/journals.html (here).

Rick

It is axiomatic to say that insurance products evolve. Indeed, like virtually every organic structure, its development, growth and nimbleness are necessary to meet the progress of maturing, service-based economies. Hence, the advent of cyber/tech/privacy liability (CTP) insurance.

At present, there are over 25 markets selling some type of CTP coverage. Many insurers sell standalone products. Others bolt on new coverage parts to their existing products. Still others add endorsements that attempt to extend coverage to address an existing client’s business model.

Read the rest of this entry »

Will SEC Guidance Awaken Private Companies To Cyber Insurance Needs?

The following article was first published in Advisen’s inaugural Cyber Liability Journal (here) as my first regular column. The second Journal was published today and is available from Advisen at http://corner.advisen.com/journals.html (here). I will republish my second column in the coming days.

Rick

Many who underwrite or broker insurance, or practice law in the cyber/technology/privacy (“CTP”) realm migrated to this emerging area from the directors and officers liability regime. At the same time, it did not take a crystal ball to recognize that it was only a matter of time before CTP and D&O found a commonality. And that time is now.

Virtually every public and private company is reliant on computer networks and electronic data. It’s a way of life in the 21st Century. And there’s no going back. Yet with reliance comes risk. It seems we read about significant CTP breaches involving large, multinational companies almost on a weekly basis. CTP breaches have become a well-recognized risk of doing business. Estimates project that over 10 percent of us already have been hacked or had their identities stolen. I am among them.

Read the rest of this entry »

FAA v. Cooper and the Federal Privacy Act: Narrow Interpretation, Broad Consequences

With its March 28, 2012 decision in Federal Aviation Administration, et al. v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (U.S. 2012), the United States Supreme Court restricted the scope of a federal privacy law, ruling that the law – which allows recovery for “actual damages” – only authorizes damages for monetary losses. Accordingly, a San Francisco pilot was not permitted to recover humiliation and emotional distress damages from government agencies that disclosed his HIV-positive status without his consent.

In 1964, Stanmore Cooper (“Cooper”) obtained his pilot’s license from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). In 1985, Cooper was diagnosed with HIV and began taking antiretroviral medication. At that time, the FAA did not issue medical certificates to persons with HIV, so Cooper gave up his pilot’s license, knowing that he would not qualify for renewal of his medical certificate. However, in 1994, Cooper re-applied for a pilot’s license and, to receive a medical certificate, purposefully withheld his HIV-positive status and medication from the FAA. He renewed his certificate four more times and as recently as 2004, each time withholding information about his condition. When Cooper’s health began to deteriorate, he applied for long-term disability benefits and, to substantiate his claim, disclosed his HIV-positive status to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), which awarded him disability benefits.

Read the rest of this entry »

New York Court of Appeals Rules That Viewing Images On The Web Does Not Constitute Procurement, Possession or Control, Even When Cached On A Hard Drive

On May 8, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling that merely viewing child pornography on the internet is not a criminal act under the New York Penal Code. The People v. James D. Kent, Index 70, NYLJ 1202552838004, at *1 (Ct. of App., Decided May 8, 2012). The rationale behind the decision of the state’s highest court bears discussion on a much broader scale due to its potential bearing on the legal definitions of procurement, possession and control of digital property.

The key question under consideration was the evidentiary significance of temporary internet files (or cache files) that are automatically created and stored on a the hard drive of a computer while the user is browsing the internet. The Appellate Court concluded that the act of viewing a web image alone does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement.

Read the rest of this entry »

If the Glove Fits, You Must Defend

Trade dress insurance coverage is alive and well. At least in Wisconsin. In Acuity v. Ross Glove Company, 2012 WL 1109035 (Wis. Ct. App. April 4, 2012), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered under advertising injury liability coverage where the underlying complaint set forth allegations of trade dress infringement.

In the Acuity case, Ross Glove purchased a commercial general liability policy from Acuity, which included advertising injury liability coverage. The policy at issue defined “advertising injury”, in part, as “infringing upon another‘s copyright, trade dress or slogan in your advertisement.”

Read the rest of this entry »

WARNING: HHS Now Combating HIPAA Violations With HITECH Weaponry

On March 13, 2012 – almost 30 months after becoming one of the first entities to self-report a breach under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act – BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) agreed to pay the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a record setting $1.5 million civil monetary penalty (CMP) for failing to safeguard protected health information (PHI).


The HITECH Act and HIPAA Enforcement

HHS adopted the interim final rule for HITECH’s breach notification requirement only a few weeks before the BCBST breach. The final rule requires covered entities to notify HHS following a breach of unsecured PHI. If a breach affects 500 or more individuals, the covered entity must report the breach electronically “without reasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days from discovery of the breach.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Access to Insured’s Social Media Accounts: No Friend Request Necessary

The following article, written by my colleague Nicole Moody, first appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Thanks to Nicole for allowing us to republish it here.

Rick Bortnick

Many of us have been there. Sipping our morning coffee, signing into our Facebook accounts, waiting to see what notifications will greet us. We are intrigued to see that we have a friend request. Who could it be? An acquaintance from the past? A new colleague who we met at work? Whoever it is, we know that by accepting the request we will be granted access into this individual’s life and will know more about them in five minutes than we would know in a lifetime of small talk.

Due to the use of usernames and passwords, there is a belief that information shared on Facebook is confidential unless publicly shared. However, courts around the country are now addressing just how private this information really is.

In cases nationwide, litigants are asking courts to grant unfettered access to other parties’ Facebook or other social media accounts. Inevitably, in the age of status updates and hashtags, poking and friending, the lines between public and private information have become blurred. This trend has become increasingly prevalent in the insurance industry as insurance companies have realized the usefulness of social media in litigation.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Cybersecurity Disclosure Guidance for Public Companies: Focusing Attention, Raising Questions

As regular Cyberinquirer readers know, on October 12, 2011, the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance published “suggested” Guidance on public companies’ disclosures of their cyber risks and exposures. I published a personal perspective on the implications of the Guidance in an October 29, 2011 post (here). Since then, our friend John Doernberg of William Gallagher Associates in Boston has written an excellent, thoughtful article which adopts a more technical approach. As many of you may know, John is a Vice President at William Gallagher and focuses on privacy, information security and risk management issues. Before becoming an insurance broker in 1995, John practiced law at leading firms in New York and Boston. The following article first appeared at John’s own site, http://blog.wgains.com/?s=Doernberg, and is being republished here with his permission. Thanks John!

Rick Bortnick

Increased corporate reliance on computer networks and electronic data has brought a corresponding increase in risks associated with breaches of their security. Such breaches have become more frequent and severe. With these Guidelines, the Division has indicated that public companies and their advisors should focus greater attention on how disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws may be affected by the potential financial and operational impact of cybersecurity breaches.

The Guidelines note that cybersecurity breaches (generically referred to as cyber incidents) can be malicious (cyber-attacks) or unintentional. The Guidelines provide something of a rogue’s gallery of cyber malice: the gaining of unauthorized access to steal or corrupt sensitive data or to disrupt operations, denial of service attacks, sophisticated electronic circumvention of network security, and social engineering techniques such as phishing to extract passwords or other information that will enable the gaining of access.

Read the rest of this entry »

Keep Your Friends Close, But Your Facebook Posts Closer

“Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.” That is the Facebook mantra, as displayed on its homepage, and the opening line of a recent – and extremely thorough! – Pennsylvania trial court decision regarding the discoverability of a plaintiff’s relevant Facebook information. The court’s conclusion: a plaintiff’s Facebook information is discoverable, provided the defendant has a good faith basis for seeking the material, because there is no confidential social networking privilege under Pennsylvania law and because the Stored Communications Act only applies to internet service providers. The take-away for Facebook users: be careful what you post – it’s not as “private” as you think!

Read the rest of this entry »

Would Your Company’s Insurance Cover a Cyberattack?

The following article was written by my good friend, Scott Godes, a policyholder attorney with Dickstein Shapiro in Washington, D.C., and first appeared on his personal site, Corporate Insurance Blog. Cyberinquirer neither ratifies nor necessarily agrees with the opinions stated below, which are Scott’s exclusively and not those of Cyberinquirer or Dickstein Shapiro. Responsible comment will gladly be published (promptly…). Please feel free to forward them to me at your convenience.

Rick Bortnick

On October 27, 2011, CNN.com posted:

A massive cyberattack that led to a vulnerability in RSA’s SecurID tags earlier this year also victimized Google, Facebook, Microsoft and many other big-named companies, according to a new analysis released this week.

The Krebs On Security blog posted:

Security experts have said that RSA wasn’t the only corporation victimized in the attack, and that dozens of other multinational companies were infiltrated using many of the same tools and Internet infrastructure.

This is in line with comments from others, including this quote from Digital Forensic Investigator News, that “2011 has quickly become the year of the cyber attack.” Would your insurance policies cover those events? Beyond the denial of service attacks that made news headlines, a shocking “80 percent of respondents” in a survey of “200 IT security execs” “have faced large scale denial of service attacks,” according to a ZDNet story. These attacks and threats do not appear to be on a downward trend. They continue to be in the news after cyberattacks allegedly took place against “U.S. government Web sites – including those of the White House and the State Department –” over the July 4, 2009 holiday weekend. The alleged attacks were not only against government sites; they allegedly included, “according to a cyber-security specialist who has been tracking the incidents, . . . those run by the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, The Washington Post, Amazon.com and MarketWatch.” Themore recent ZDNet survey shows that a quarter of respondents faced denial of service attacks on a weekly or even daily basis, with cyberextortion threats being made as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

Securities Law and Cyber Disclosures… Perfect Together…Especially for Cyber and Tech Underwriters and Brokers. And Me

Its not often that worlds collide or that interests converge into one amorphous epiphany. But that’s exactly what happened to me recently, when the Division of Corporate Finance (DCF) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Disclosure Guidance identifying the types of information public companies should consider disclosing about cyber risks and events that could impact their financial statements. Now, the DCF has cautioned that the Disclosure Guidance only represents its own views and “is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission.” The DCF also emphasizes right up front that “the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content.” Yeah, right. YOU be an officer or director or officer of a company that does not “comply” with the DCF’s “recommendations.”

Read the rest of this entry »

And Now, the Maine Event: Mitigation Costs Constitute Damages in Data-Breach Case

Businesses that necessarily require their customers to disclose credit card and personal information, beware. Just five days ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that claims by class action plaintiffs for “mitigation damages” arising from alleged negligence and breach of contract were viable. Anderson v. Hannaford Brothers Co., Nos. 10–2384, 10–2450, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21239 (1st Cir. Oct. 20, 2011).

In Anderson, the electronic payment processing system of a national grocery chain, Hannaford Brothers Co., was breached by hackers in 2007. This resulted in the dissemination of as many as 4.2 million credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. Hannaford Brothers was not notified of the breach until February 27, 2008 and subsequently contained the breach on March 10, 2008. A week later, Hannaford released a statement regarding the breach and announced that over 1,800 cases of fraud resulting from the theft already had been reported.

Following Hannaford’s announcement, several financial institutions immediately cancelled customers’ debit and credit cards. Some financial institutions, which refrained from immediately canceling the credit card, monitored the accounts for unusual activity, cancelling the cards, in many cases, without notifying the customer. Customers who asked that their cards be cancelled incurred fees from issuing banks for the replacement cards.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tenth Circuit “Dishes Out” Important Opinion Addressing The Scope Of Advertising Injury Coverage For Patent Infringement Claims

On October 17, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a much-anticipated decision addressing the scope of “Advertising Injury” (“AI”) coverage for patent infringement claims. Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. 10-1445, __ F.3d __ , 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20955 (10th Cir. 2011), rev’g, 734 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Colo. 2010). The court, applying Colorado law, reversed a decision from the District of Colorado in which that court granted summary judgment to the insurers. In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged that Dish Network Corp. (“Dish”) had infringed one or more of twenty-three patents by “making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling . . . automated telephone systems, including . . . the Dish Network customer service telephone system, that allow[s] Dish’s customers to perform pay-per-view ordering and customer service functions over the telephone.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that the record was unclear about how Dish actually used the technologies at issue, but that some of the patent-holder’s most well-known innovations involved interactive call processing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook: Everything You Want To Know and More… Just a Discovery Request Away!

I recently attended a CLE that had a panel of social media experts who were discussing the role of Facebook, Twitter and MySpace in litigation. During a lull in the question and answer session, the Facebook attorney quipped: “you know, Facebook has already given you everything that you’ve ask for…” Immediately, the audience lifted their heads from their Blackberries and newspapers and started paying attention after this cryptic remark.

Read the rest of this entry »

INTRODUCTION TO CANADA’S PIPEDA PRIVACY LEGISLATION

I. Overview

Canada’s privacy regime can be described as a web of legislation at both the federal and provincial/territorial level. Some commentators express concern that this web has become tangled, lacks uniformity and actually undermines the predictability and consistency that, in their view, would exist under a single (federal) privacy regime. Canada has two primary privacy statutes: the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). The Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 (Can.), took effect on July 1, 1983, and imposed certain privacy rights obligations on approximately 250 federal government departments and agencies by limiting the use and disclosure of personal information. The Privacy Act also gives individuals the right to access and, if necessary, correct personal information held by governmental organizations subject to the Act.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ensuring Discovery Compliance: Sanctions Relating to Past, Present, and Future Adverse Parties

First published on September 22, 2011 at e-Discovery Law Review
Monetary sanctions, attorneys fees, and adverse inference jury instructions are the more common type of sanctions imposed on litigants for the spoliation of evidence, or not producing relevant documents. Recently, however, a court has increased the severity and impact of sanctions by applying them not only to current litigation, but also to a party’s future litigation, with the effects lingering for years to come.

The Underlying Suit

“Any competent electronic discovery effort would have located this email.” These words were written in an opinion by a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Texas in Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-372 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 1, 2011) Green involved a product liability suit in which the requirement of a flame arrester was in dispute. The jury returned a defense verdict, and the plaintiff collected a low settlement amount as part of a high-low settlement agreement. During discovery in a subsequent case with the same defendant and plaintiff’s counsel, counsel learned of documents that were not produced in Green. The plaintiff then filed a motion for sanctions against the defendant in Green and a motion to re-open the Green case. While the court denied the motion to re-open because the statute of limitations had expired, the court did impose sanctions for the discovery abuse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Discovery in the Age of Cloud Computing

During the last decade, individuals and business have changed the way they manage their data by moving this data management offsite – otherwise known as cloud computing. This differs from the old model of information management that, more or less, mirrored the pre-computing era, meaning that an employee’s file might be kept in a cabinet in a Human Resources (“HR”) office or stored on a company’s in-house server. With cloud computing, however, that same employee file may be stored hundreds or thousands of miles away from the HR officer who needs to review it – or the IT officer tasked with preserving that data for potential litigation.

As discussed more fully in Rick Bortnick’s prior posts (here and here), cloud computing outsources data and software management, migrating it from the local to the global by providing instant access over the internet. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cloud computing has five primary characteristics: (1) “on-demand self-service,” or the ability to call up stored data or capabilities as needed; (2) broad network access through a variety of platforms; (3) pooling resources providing “location independence”; (4) “rapid elasticity” in the distribution of computing capabilities, and (5) “measured service,” or service-appropriate control and optimization by the cloud system manager rather than the local user. It is the pooling of resources and the measured service managed by third-parties that pose the greatest risks during e-discovery.
Read the rest of this entry »

Two New Online Resources For IP Information: “WIPO GOLD” And USPTO

Within the last week, two separate intellectual property search engines were launched, each of which has the potential to significantly palliate searches for patents, trademarks and other IP. http://www.wipo.int/wipogold/en/

Specifically, on June 1, 2010, the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) introduced a free online public resource, “WIPO GOLD” which aims to facilitate universal access to IP information. It promises “quick and easy access to a broad collection of searchable IP data and tools relating to, for example, technology, brands, domain names, designs, statistics, WIPO standards, IP classification systems and IP laws and treaties..” The site also includes a helpful translation option, should users wish to search results in a language other than the default, English. The news report can be viewed here: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2010/article_0018.html

Meanwhile, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) separately announced on June 2, 2010 that it has entered into a “no-cost, two-year agreement with Google to make bulk electronic patent and trademark public data available to the public in bulk form.” Under the agreement, USPTO will provide Google with “existing bulk, electronic files, which Google will host without modification for the public free of charge.” Examples of searchable items include: patent grants and applications; trademark applications and Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings; and patent classification information. The USPTO and Google also will work together to make additional data available in the future, such as patent and trademark file histories and related data, the office said. The bulk data can be accessed at http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html.

In other words, as technology moves forward, so too does the ability to research and guard intellectual property ownership and interests… at least in the Western Hemisphere and other WIPO member countries. Now, if only the remainder of the world could come together to unify owners’ capabilities to globally protect their IP rights.

Create PDF    Send article as PDF