Lucian Pera

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Tigar grants plaintiffs in Doe 1 v. Github leave to file interlocutory appeal to Ninth Circuit on whether DMCA CMI claims under Section 1202 are limited to identical copies of the plaintiffs works. Opinion in link below: https://lnkd.in/gXYsEvYY Part of the reason: "To this Court’s knowledge no court of appeal has ruled on this issue, and district courts have reached differing conclusions. See, e.g., Anderson v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-cv-00201-WHO, 2024 WL 3823234, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (finding DMCA Section 1202(b) claims have an identicality requirement); Beijing Meishe Network Tech. Co., Ltd., v. TikTok Inc., No. 23-cv-06012-SI, 2024 WL 3522196, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2024) (declining to dismiss on identicality grounds); ADR Int’l Ltd. v. Inst. for Supply Mgmt. Inc., 667 F. Supp. 3d 411, 427 (S.D. Tex. 2023) (“Based on the plain wording of the statute, the Court is not persuaded that the DMCA includes an ‘identical copy’ requirement.”); Kirk Kara Corp v. W. Stone & Metal Corp., No. CV 20-1931-DMG (Ex), 2020 WL 5991503 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020) (adopting an “identicality” standard); Oracle Int’l Corp. v. Rimini St., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01699-MMD-DJA, 2023 WL 4706127, at *82 (D. Nev. July 24, 2023) (“The Court also rejects Rimini’s argument . . . that a work that removes copyright management information must be an exact copy of the original work. This construction of the DMCA would weaken the statute’s intended protections for copy right holders.”). “One of the best indications that there are substantial grounds for disagreement on a question of law is that other courts have, in fact, disagreed.” Rollins v. Dignity Health, No. 13-cv-01450-TEH, 2014 WL 6693891, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014). Given this split in authority the Court finds there are substantial grounds for disagreement on this issue."

34

3 Comments

BREAKING NEWS: Latest status report on copyright lawsuits v AI companies. 📰 4 new lawsuits = 24 total lawsuits May 8 hybrid hearing on MTD in Andersen v Stability AI: you can attend via Zoom 🏎️ Link in article below 👇🏽 Judge Tigar cancels hearing on MTD in Doe 1 v Microsoft. Who does that favor?

57

4 Comments

#SCOTUS dodges discovery rule issue in #WarnerChappell but lifts damages time bar Critical copyright case looking at when damages can be awarded in disputes results in dissenting opinions. https://buff.ly/3QED1uA #EntraIP #IntellectualProperty #Trademark #Copyright #Patent #PropiedadIntelectual #Marca #Patente

1

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Chhabria reluctantly grants plaintiffs motion for more discovery time in Kadrey v Meta after David Boies firm takes lead for plaintiffs. Joseph Saveri firm still part of legal team. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, who represents Authors Guild in SDNY and Farnsworth in a case related to Kadrey, could become co-class counsel with Boies firm. See below: ORDER. For the reasons stated on the record at today's hearing, the plaintiffs' motion to extend the case schedule is reluctantly granted. The new fact discovery cutoff will be December 13, 2024. The hearing on dispositive motions with respect to the named plaintiffs' claims will take place May 1, 2024 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 4. The parties shall meet and confer about all surrounding dates and submit a stipulation regarding those dates within 7 days of this order. The parties are urged to bring any significant discovery disputes to Judge Hixson's attention sooner rather than later. The plaintiffs in the Kadrey case are ordered to confer with the plaintiffs in the Farnsworth case to discuss whether: (1) the case should be consolidated, with the Boies firm and the Cabraser firm serving as co-lead counsel; or (2) the Farnsworth case should be stayed pending adjudication of the Kadrey case. Within 7 days of this order, the plaintiffs in the two cases should either submit a joint letter or competing letters setting forth their positions. The Court understands Meta's position, but Meta is also free to file a letter if it wishes. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 10/4/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2024) (Entered: 10/04/2024)”

18

5 Comments

Who owns Big League Chew? The answer: It depends on who you believe. One company tells a federal court it's the owner. Another tells the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office it's the owner. Here's my Sportico sports law column on this sticky battle over gum ownership:

24

4 Comments

Associates Nicholas Bellos and Marianne Bradley write about the complexities of navigating the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act. Now adopted by 46 states, the UIDDA has significantly streamlined the interstate subpoena process, but procedural pitfalls and strategic considerations still remain. Nick and Mare share important practice tips and advice for lawyers in The Legal Intelligencer. https://lnkd.in/ez7GMbka #HASPS

49

2 Comments

I've posted DExit Drivers: Is Delaware's Dominance Threatened? to SSRN Abstract: For over a century, Delaware has led the corporate law landscape, though it has not been without competitors. States such as Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia have attempted to rival Delaware, attracted by its significant tax revenue from incorporations. Today, Nevada emerges as a notable challenger, actively promoting "DExit" – a push for companies to leave Delaware. Consequently, this analysis primarily examines the choice between Delaware and Nevada. Widespread discussion of the potential for mass DExit was triggered by recent criticisms from business leaders and prominent corporate lawyers. While such complaints have not yet triggered a mass exodus from Delaware, many firms are reportedly considering changing their corporate domicile. But is Delaware’s dominance genuinely at risk? Are these just isolated incidents or signs of a broader trend? This article provides both and empirical and a qualitative analysis of firms that reincorporated from Delaware to another state between 2012 and 2024. It analyzes these firms based on size, filing status, and new state, along with their stated motivations. The data suggest two main conclusions. First, almost all reasons given for reincorporation seem implausible. If DExit becomes more frequent, plaintiff lawyers should scrutinize these disclosures, particularly focusing on enhanced liability protections for controllers, directors, and officers, suggesting possible conflicts of interest requiring entire fairness review. Second, the number of reincorporations from Delaware remains minimal compared to the vast number of new incorporations Delaware attracts annually. Given the strong inertia behind the initial incorporation decision and the weak drivers for DExit, it is unlikely to become widespread soon. #corporategovernance, #corporatelaw, #reincorporation, #Nevada, #Delaware, #Delawarecorporatelaw, #empiricalanalysis https://lnkd.in/gYTFJ58a

34

2 Comments

Young Thug/YSL Trial Update: Today, in announcing his decision to send the motions for recusal to another judge (which, by the way, is 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 by rule), Judge Glanville said that he believes his ex parte meeting with the prosecutor and a witness was permitted under Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct 2.9. Hogwash. That rule prohibits ex parte communications except in very limited circumstances. The exception Judge Glanville believes applies is Rule 2.9(a)(1): "Where circumstances require, ex parte communications are authorized for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits, provided that: (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond. With all "due respect" to the Judge Glanville, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that his meeting with a key prosecution witness and the prosecution was about "scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits." Further, even if it was (which, again, it was absolutely not), the Judge did not "promptly notify" all parties of the substance of his meeting. Instead, when he was caught, he held the lawyer who caught him in contempt, and only now, weeks later, has agreed to release the transcript after the outrage that he has faced. Judge Glanville should be recused, and the case should end in a mistrial. If the DA decides to retry, Jeffrey Williams (aka Young Thug) and his co-defendants should be released on bond. #criminaldefense #youngthug #ysl #fultoncounty

26

3 Comments

My division is hiring attorneys! If you have experience in the areas listed (for example, if you have applied administrative law in the context of an area such as Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc), please consider applying to join our excellent team. The American Law Division conducts sophisticated and fast-paced legal analysis for Congress in a non-litigation setting. The public reports we issue only scratch the surface of our work. #hiring #attorneys #administrativelaw #constitutionallaw #courts #civilprocedure (Any positions, statements, commentary, or views expressed by the author here are solely those of the author in her personal capacity and are not presented as those of the Congressional Research Service or the Library of Congress.)

6

🚨 When Attorneys Cross the Line: A Case of Ethical Breach and Legal Accountability 🚨 💼 Attorneys hold immense power in their clients’ lives—but what happens when the court believes that power is abused? In an interesting recent decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a $50,000 judgment against an attorney for conduct that it held crossed ethical and legal boundaries. Here’s the backstory: 🔹 In September 2017, the attorney met with her client and his estranged wife, despite a criminal protective order barring him from contacting her. 🔹 During this meeting, she was subjected to verbal and emotional abuse. The attorney even threatened to take her daughter away unless she signed a custody agreement under duress. 🔹 She contacted the police after the ordeal, but the saga didn’t end there. When she later recorded the meeting (without consent), the attorney turned around and sued her. In response, she filed a cross-complaint alleging negligence, emotional distress, and misrepresentation. The result? The court sided with her. ✔️ The attorney was found liable for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. ✔️ The attorney’s attempts to claim the statute of limitations and litigation privilege were dismissed. Key Takeaway: Attorneys are bound by ethical obligations. When those lines are crossed—whether through coercion, threats, or misconduct—they can face serious consequences. This case serves as a powerful reminder that the legal profession is built on trust, integrity, and accountability. 📢 Have you ever wondered where the line is between advocacy and abuse? Let us know your thoughts below! #LegalEthics #AttorneyMisconduct #FamilyLaw #CriminalLaw #ProfessionalAccountability #EthicalLawyering #CaliforniaLaw #LegalNews

1

Is a party taking a deposition entitled to key documents reviewed by a witness during deposition prep if they refresh the witness’s memory? In The Colorado Bar Association’s Colorado Lawyer magazine, #HaynesBoone’s Brent Owen and Michael Freyberg explore: ⚖️ The interplay between attorney work product and Rule 612 ⚖️ Recent decisions from district courts in the Tenth Circuit ⚖️ Practical takeaways for attorneys Read more in the article below.

35

Excellent article by Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC highlighting the practical uses of deposition summaries and introduction of the #AI summary tool and benefits. Message me here or [email protected] for a demo of our Intelligent Summary+!

6

How did the Kirkland partner video get leaked is the question we’re asking ourselves. Some are recalling the infamous ‘Claire Swire email’ which involved a Norton Rose lawyer from way back at the dawn of time in 2000 and the one too from a CC lawyer back in 2003. *All articles and videos can be found in the comments section. Clifford Chance Adopts US-Style Bonus System for Associates: Clifford Chance has revamped its bonus system for UK associates to align more closely with those offered by US firms, according to The Lawyer . The new system, introduced last month, rewards associates more when they are in higher demand, with bonuses linked to the number of hours billed. This US-style focus on billables marks a departure from the ‘no target-hours culture’ prevalent at many UK firms. Clyde & Co Boosts Revenue by 10%: Clyde & Co has reported strong financial results for the past year, with revenue growing by 10% to £845 million. Profit per equity partner (PEP) increased by 4% to £739,000. The firm attributed its growth to success across various practice areas, emphasizing its "sector-focused, geographically hedged" model. Over the year, Clyde & Co added 32 new partners through lateral hires and internal promotions. Kirkland & Ellis Partner Video Goes Viral in the City: A video leaked to RollOnFriday shows two Kirkland & Ellis partners in London mocking a fellow partner during a work call, culminating in him knocking over a bottle of whisky. The footage, recorded in Kirkland's London office in the Gherkin, is circulating among City lawyers. In the video, the partner gives the middle finger to the person filming but nearly drops a bottle of Macallan whisky before catching it. Reactions in the comments are mixed. One top comment expressed sympathy, saying, "can't believe anyone leaked this… poor guy," while another suggested, "I'd be sacking this bunch of jokers. You know this is just the tip of the iceberg." Partner's 4,000 Hours Help Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Hit $200 Million Mark: Sullivan & Cromwell’s fees for the ongoing bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX have reached $200 million, largely thanks to the efforts of a single partner. Litigation partner Brian Glueckstein has averaged 11 hours a day, five days a week, for 18 months, billing more than 4,000 hours at a rate of $2,375 per hour, amounting to $9.5 million. Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers have collectively billed over 168,000 hours on the matter so far, reports Reuters. CC: Non-Billable

1

3 Comments

Book a court reporter through eCourt Reporters' secure database and receive a complimentary deposition summary! (one per customer)   Why Elite Deposition Summaries?   1. Elite Deposition Summaries allow attorneys to quickly understand the key points of a deposition without having to read the entire transcript, which can be lengthy.   2. Elite Deposition Summaries provide a concise overview of the deposition, making it easier to find and refer to specific testimony when needed.   3. By summarizing the key points of the deposition, attorneys can better prepare for trial or settlement negotiations as they have a clear understanding of the testimony.   4. Elite Deposition Summaries help organize and categorize information, which makes it easier to structure and present the case.   5. Elite Deposition Summaries ensure that the key points and testimony are accurately represented, reducing the risk of misinterpretation.   6. Outsourcing deposition summary services can be more cost-effective than having in-house staff spend time on the task.   7. Elite Deposition Summaries can be shared with clients, insurance providers, or other relevant parties to keep them informed about the case.   8. By understanding the key points of the deposition, attorneys can develop more effective litigation strategies and make informed decisions.   9. Elite Deposition Summaries help preserve the testimony under oath by ensuring that important information is documented and available for future reference.   10. With Elite Deposition Summaries, it becomes easier to analyze the testimony, identify inconsistencies, and assess the credibility of witnesses.   Deposition summaries are only as good as the transcripts that go into them!   To ensure your transcripts are certified, schedule vetted court reporters directly through eCourt Reporters' database of professionals. www.ecourtreporters.com 

6

The Importance of Written Mediation Settlement Agreements In Missouri, it’s not just a good practice to reduce a mediation settlement agreement to writing, it’s required if the parties want the agreement to be enforceable. Supreme Court Rule 17 is clear: oral settlement agreements from court-ordered mediation aren't enforceable unless they're put in writing. See, Williams v. Kansas City Title Loan Co., Inc., 314 S.W.3d 868 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010).  Missouri courts will not enforce oral agreements from mediations. Kansas doesn't have an explicit rule like Missouri's that requires mediation agreements to be in writing. But it’s still the best practice. Mediators should reduce at least a summary agreement to writing. While most mediators ask the parties to sign a settlement agreement, this is more challenging with online mediations. The mediator and the parties need the technical expertise to draft, distribute, and get signatures on a .pdf or other document setting forth the terms of the settlement. My practice is to send the parties information about the technology that will be used in an online mediation so that those issues can be resolved ahead of time. Ethical Concerns From an ethical and practical standpoint, making sure everyone understands the deal is key. The Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and similar rules in Missouri encourage mediators and lawyers to avoid misunderstandings and make sure all parties are clear on the settlement terms. Practical Reasons to Write It Down Beyond the legal and ethical rules, there are strong practical reasons to document mediation agreements: Clarity: Written agreements help everyone understand the key settlement terms. This helps avoid misunderstandings or different interpretations of what was agreed to in mediation. Finality: A written document shows which terms of the agreement are final and no longer negotiable. It confirms the dispute is resolved. Although most parties draft a more comprehensive agreement post-mediation, the signed agreement at mediation will lock down the key terms such as payment, confidentiality, assessment of costs, etc. Enforcement: It's easier to enforce a written settlement in court. The parties avoid any ambiguity about which of the parties' statements are part of the settlement agreement. Professional Standards: For legal professionals, upholding high practice standards is essential. Written agreements are a best practice. The Bottom Line Regardless of the rules, the best practice is to reduce the agreement to writing. From legal enforceability to ethical considerations and practical benefits, there are compelling reasons to put a mediation settlement in writing. When the mediating parties believe they have settled their case, they should be confident the settlement will stick. If you’d like to book a mediation, click the “Book an Appointment” link in my profile. #Mediation #Ethics #SageMediationSolutions #MSBLaw

6

In this blog post, Gerard Stegmaier and Mark Quist examine the First Circuit Court of Appeals' decision affirming that specific personal jurisdiction must be based on defendants’ intentional conduct. In affirming the dismissal of a consumer class action that alleged “wiretapping” claims based on ordinary website activity, the federal appeals court’s decision reflects growing judicial skepticism toward the proliferation of class action claims applying old statutes to ubiquitous internet technologies. #technology #business #wiretapping #internet #privacy https://lnkd.in/eUZMBuPf

16