This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
It launched in 2017 to great fanfare, promising to “revolutionize legal services” through its dual-entity model of both a law firm and a technology company. In 2017, Forbes named the three founders to its “30 Under 30.” But one thing for certain is that while some products shut down with a whimper, others go out with a bang.
I’m not going to get all analytical here, but it is noteworthy to those involved in litigation and related services. Compared to recent years where we have seen a lower volume but higher “run” rate (around 80% in 2017), this seems to indicate that the use of technology-driven litigation support services (e.g.,
District Court in Manhattan by a legal tech executive who alleges her former company owes her over $1 million in stock and that her former boss sexually harassed her. “We expect that the New York and Texas courts will rule in favor of our clients,” attorney Shah said in her email.
For those who have to go to court without a lawyer, navigating the justice system can be daunting. Courtroom5 is a unique justice tech company that addresses that problem by providing pro se litigants with the training, tools, documents and support they need to represent themselves.
Long called Legaltech New York, it was renamed Legalweek in 2017 , and is one of the largest, longest-running and most-anticipated conferences focused on legal technology and the business of law, last year drawing over 6,000 attendees and featuring more than 300 speakers. Legalweek, Jan. 1 Legalweek is the OG of legal tech conferences.
Today brings news that Gavelytics , a seven-year-old litigation analytics company, is closing its doors effective tomorrow. We invented the category of state court analytics. We built things never before built and answered litigation-related questions never before answerable. Merrill told me at the time of his 2017 launch.
“So often when attorneys are writing court documents or preparing for oral arguments and they want to know what their judge thinks about different issues in their case, they have very little information to go off of. federal courts. The company’s roadmap calls for it to eventually expand into state courts as well.
We work on both sides of the table, and although our primary market is the California courts, we do cover other areas now and then, including a recent $200M arbitration in New York City. Coincidentally, we recently won awards in New York Law Journal for Best Trial Consultant, and Best "Hot Seat" Trial Technicians!
Thus, I always felt the litigation ploy acted as an adverse admission by the plaintiffs. But courts don’t always use facts like that for petard-hoisting, instead grounding their rulings in legal doctrines and admissible evidence. Yet, the court bails YouTube out. The court shreds this chart.
A first-of-its-kind tool introduced last year to automate the drafting of litigation briefs has been named new product of the year for 2021 by the American Association of Law Libraries. Compose launched with the ability to create core federal court procedural and discovery motions. Casetext says it can cut brief-writing time by 76%.
Given that they are litigating 512(f), your wish was partially granted. The court refuses Temu’s preliminary injunction request. Day to Day Imports * Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police InfringementSunny Factory v. This time, the pugilists are fast-fashion marketplaces Shein and Temu.
Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York dismissed plaintiffs’ suit in its entirety, holding that plaintiffs had no cognizable claim for damages or injunctive relief because they failed at this stage of litigation to demonstrate that they had been harmed in any way by OpenAI’s actions. Double Scienter. Corelogic, Inc.,
Many reprints were available on earlier versions of the Litigation-Tech website. The archive is intended to preserve these older articles, which were written prior to the Court Technology and Trial Presentation blog, which I started writing in 2009. Things are different for writers now, in that you can click, and publish.
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. The court said that the trademark owner had been using the trademark since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2006. ” That prompted this litigation. CV H-17-1068, 2017 WL 2957912, at *8 (S.D.
Jason Fyk’s recent litigation campaign reminds me of the classic story Moby Dick, with Fyk in the Captain Ahab role and Section 230 as his white whale. His lawsuit against Facebook was dashed by Section 230 in the district court. The Supreme Court denied cert. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Sessions, 697 F. App’x 7 (D.C.
Pre/Dicta , claiming itself the only litigation analytics platform that makes predictions about the outcome of federal lawsuits, announced the acquisition of Gavelytics, a pioneering judicial analytics platform for state court cases. This deal is a major milestone for Pre/Dicta and the entire field of predictive litigation analytics.
If the subpoena issued is in federal litigation, your company is likely responsible for the cost of compliance, especially if it has a connection to the litigation. 23, 2015) the court observed that responding parties presumptively bear the expense of complying with discovery requests unless the expense is “significant.”
Illinois courts can receive grant funding for local access to justice initiatives through the Illinois Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission (ATJ Commission) and the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Access to Justice Division’s (AOIC ATJ Division) ATJ Improvement Grant. on Monday, June 26.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. For nearly 30 years, the framework for judging fair use cases has been remarkably stable, based on Justice Souter’s masterful opinion for a unanimous Court in Campbell v. [Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. 569 (1994).
For those who have to go to court without a lawyer, navigating the justice system can be daunting. Courtroom5 is a unique justice tech company that addresses that problem by providing pro se litigants with the training, tools, documents and support they need to represent themselves.
A new integration between two litigation-focused legal technology products connects more than 500 million federal and state litigation dockets and documents with a database of expert witness and judicial profiles, with the aim of helping lawyers better evaluate expert witnesses.
For example, the most aggressive companies in pursuing web-scraping litigation are the social media companies. Next, from the early 2000s until 2017, the primary legal theory that was used to deter web scraping was the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or the CFAA. And then, in 2017, the famous hiQ Labs, Inc. LinkedIn Corp.
A: because they spend so much time in court proceedings). Protip: if you want to win in court, don’t self-describe as an “appropriation artist”). The court treats Ripps’ collection as competing against and putting downward price pressure on the original NFTs. Q: why are the apes so bored?
The court says that White, the plaintiff, never showed that UMG was aware of his non-exclusive license, but was that required? The court thus concludes that “the factual record contradicts White’s central claim that UMG, in issuing the takedown notices, knew that “Oi!” Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?
Consistent with the CCB’s small claims court ethos, the case involved both a pro se claimant and respondent. Eric asked me: how would this have been different if the claimant had pursued the traditional route of suing in federal court? The CCB filing cost is about $300 less than federal court. Copyright Office on July 29, 2017.
In 2017, I bypassed the list to focus on a single overarching development, The Year of Women in Legal Tech.). Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters. The victim of this limbo is progress.
Invisible Narratives sought an ex parte TRO to prevent that from happening, which the court grants. The court relies on 512(f) as the basis of the TRO: “Invisible Narratives has presented evidence that Next Level was neither the original creator of Skibidi Toilet nor the lawful copyright owner of Skibidi Toilet characters.
When UniCourt was founded in 2017 to provide access to court data and analytics, APIs were an afterthought, cofounder Josh Blandi now says. The company’s original focus was on building an application to provide law firms and others with easy access to federal and state court records.
For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). In Latest Litigation Gambit, ROSS Files Antitrust Claim Against Thomson Reuters, Alleging Research Monopoly (Jan.
In 2017, Google ran into these very issues. The court, however, focused on HIPAA’s explicit exemption for research purposes, which allows sharing of information to the extent that the identifiers are removed. Accordingly, the court held in favor of Google.
So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling is part of an ongoing multi-iteration tussle (in and out of court) over market share between two rival unions. Because of these deficiencies, the court says: “The copyright note is not a DMCA notice under § 512. ” Cite to ISE v.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
In 2017, Google ran into these very issues. The court, however, focused on HIPAA’s explicit exemption for research purposes, which allows sharing of information to the extent that the identifiers are removed. Accordingly, the court held in favor of Google. However, besides Dinerstein, this space has not seen many other lawsuits.
I reported last summer that the pioneering state litigation analytics company was shutting down. Today’s press release reports that Gavelytics will live again as the core of Pre/Dicta ‘s state court predictive litigation component. said Merrill, who is joining Pre/Dicta as its strategic advisor.
This post outlines the DOJ’s antitrust case against Apple, and explores potential changes that Apple could make to its ecosystem in light of the litigation. Antitrust allegations against Apple: Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization of any part of trade or commerce.
Earlier this week, I reported here that the litigation analytics company Gavelytics, which shut down operations in June, has been acquired by a relative newcomer to the legal analytics space, Pre/Dicta , which launched its product in July after two years of development. BOB: Congratulations to both of you. BOB: Rick, what about you?
The litigants are an employer and former employee. The court accepts that the employer believed the works were created within the scope of employment, so the associated takedown notice wasn’t sent in bad faith. Shande will get his day in court. This includes a 512(f) claim. The 512(f) claim fails. Case Citation : Shande v.
The same holds true in the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS blog took a look at data from the 2017 term to identify patterns. One element that they looked for was if gender imbalances in oral argument interruptions of previous years continued in 2017. The post Pardon the Interruptions appeared first on Liquid Litigation Management.
As a result, courts have recognized three types of liability for copyright infringement: direct infringement (“to do” any one of the five exclusive rights), contributory infringement (“to authorize” another to directly infringe) and vicarious liability (based on the relationship between the direct infringer and the person sought to be held liable).
Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism Commissioner Trisha M. Rich has served on the Commission on Professionalism since 2017. Her practice focuses on legal ethics and professional responsibility matters and complex commercial litigation. She is currently the Chair of the Audit & Finance Committee.
Supreme Court TransUnion decision. Individuals whose personal information was compromised in a data breach have had mixed success in bringing lawsuits in federal court against the companies that held their data. Recent Circuit Court Decisions: Tsao, McMorris, and In re Equifax The U.S.
Changes to the Privacy Act The last significant change since passing the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017 has become the Privacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 , the final passage of which was approved on November 28 of November 2022, by the Parliament of Australia. Overarching proportionality requirement.
According to documents Snap has filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Snap has been using the name “Spectacles” in association with electronic publishing services since August 14, 2017, obtaining a federal registered trademark for that use on January 21, 2020 (Reg. 5,964,422).
I hope this post makes clear why I get so irritated whenever I see the phrases referenced in a court opinion or invoked by a grandstanding politician. 23, 2017) Daniel v. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation , 2022 WL 4009918 (N.D. Twitter, Inc. , 200 F.Supp.3d 3d 964 (N.D. 10, 2016) Fields v. Twitter, Inc. ,
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content