This article shows 10 things you should know about EU data protection reform.
The European Unified Patent Court (UPC) – which centralizes patent litigation throughout most of the EU – is on track to go live in late 2016 or early 2017. The new UPC is expected to rival and potentially surpass US courts as the preferred venue for major patent disputes, as US companies will be able to obtain an EU-wide injunction via a single litigation, instead of having to litigate in each jurisdiction. This will drastically reduce costs and improve enforcement, but it won’t be easy. The new system and the changes in procedure and process are complex. Companies must assess multiple factors to decide in advance whether to participate or opt-out. This panel comprised of lawyers dually qualified in the US and UK will focus on how the UPC will impact IP filing and enforcement strategies of US companies, and answer questions such as: What strategic planning should US companies be doing now to prepare for the UPC?; What are the best practices to protect US companies’ patent portfolios in Europe?; What are the commercial advantages of opting-in or out of the UPC?; How will early UPC participants shape the new court system?; How do US companies decide whether to opt-in or opt-out?; How do US companies approach product clearance and FTO in Europe, particularly as applied in licensing and acquisitions?; What are the options for mitigating significant competitor patent risk before it is exacerbated by the UPC?
The evolving landscape of economic sanctions continues to be the foremost concern to global corporations as new countries and regimes are targeted, amendments to diplomatic positions and policies are implemented, new tools emerge for implementation and enforcement efforts remain steady. Hear from experts with varying perspectives (outside counsel and in-house counsel from both sides of the pond and former senior Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) employees) on the current state of US and EU economic sanctions, including those targeting Ukraine/Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Myanmar. Explore the new issues and considerations in-house lawyers should be thinking about, how to navigate an atmosphere of increased compliance from a global perspective and what to take away from recent global enforcement trends. The discussion-style panel is composed of A&O experts from the United States and Europe, former OFAC employees and industry participants from global corporations and financial institutions.
As more companies go global, in-house counsel must manage litigation where a foreign entity is sued in the United States or litigate a matter in Europe. Not only must in-house counsel educate overseas managers about the reality of litigation in the United States and learn various rules abroad, but they also face the difficult task of determining what is discoverable and how to conduct investigations to comply with the demands of US courts and stringent EU data and privacy regulations. This panel will focus on highlighting the differences between the key stages of litigation in the European Union and the United States, using real-world examples to help in-house counsel better prepare to deal with the practical implications of litigation involving multiple jurisdictions.
This directive was a desire to create appropriate means to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time.
This article is a white paper on data transfer to the U.S. and the effects derived from the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding Safe Harbor.
This Top Ten outlines ten considerations regarding Europe's proposed general data protection regulation.
This publication discusses the pitfalls to beware of regarding reverse enquiry in the EEA.
The purpose of this table is to: 1) list the countries in the European Union that have a comprehensive data protection law (columns 1 and 2); 2) summarize the notification and/or registration requirements with the competent data protection authority in these countries and explain where exemptions to notify/register may exist (columns 3 and 4); and 3) specify the countries where it is required to notify individuals about the collection and processing of their personal data (column 5).