Updates

Intel Uses Drones, AI to Help Save Polar Bears and Whales

Posted on October 5, 2017
Posted in Updates

Today, on World Animal Day, Intel Corp. is announcing two successful wildlife research expeditions powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and drones. In two separate collaborations with a wildlife photographer and conservationist, Ole Jørgen Liodden, and nonprofit organizations Parley for the Oceans and Ocean Alliance, Intel leveraged its AI and drone technology to provide researchers with tools to better inform their findings – giving them the ability to more quickly, safely and cost-effectively gather and process critical data. Written byBetsy Lillian October 4, 2017 >Click here to read full article.…

READ MORE

Equifax Data Breach

Posted on September 12, 2017
Posted in Updates

Equifax, one of the largest credit score providers in America, announced on September 7, 2017 that it was the victim of a large-scale hack that exposed the personal information, including Social Security numbers, of an estimated 143 million Americans. In addition to Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver’s license numbers, 182,000 credit dispute documents and approximately 209,000 credit card numbers were also exposed during the data breach. This data breach could affect up to 44 percent of the American population. Equifax has now joined the list of cybersecurity victims and is now challenged by damage to its brand and loss of customer confidence. Don’t wait until you are a victim. CWM can help you establish the right legal policies to manage your business risks and mitigate liability. We team with highly skilled cybersecurity experts that can enhance your cyber infrastructure and respond to a data related incident. Cybersecurity is not just an IT issue; it’s a business resiliency issue with legal implications. Your employees and customers count on you to be secure. Call 757.802.9043 or email (cybersecurity@cwm-law.com) us today to let us help you prepare for the cyber risks of the future. Here are a few tips (not legal advice) if you may have been affected. Read the notice carefully to learn what information may have been exposed and how. Review the breached account for unauthorized activity or evidence of compromise. Know exactly what’s at risk (SSN, credit card information, dates of birth or other). Utilize free credit-monitoring, fraud alerts or security freezes on credit reports. Be vigilant for unauthorized charges on other accounts. Check your credit report and watch for other fraud or unusual activity (medical,Social Security, insurance, IRS). Change all user access credentials.…

READ MORE

Target Settles 2013 Hacked Customer Data Breach For $18.5 Million

Posted on June 8, 2017
Posted in Updates

NBC News | BUSINESS MAY 24 2017, 10:49 AM ET Target agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle claims by 47 states and resolve a multi-state investigation into a massive data breach in late 2013. Target places the total cost of the data breach at $202 million. > Click to read article…

READ MORE

Chipotle Says Hackers Hit Most Restaurants in Data Breach

Posted on June 8, 2017
Posted in Updates

NBC News | BUSINESS MAY 27 2017, 1:29 AM ET Hackers used malware to steal customer payment data from most of Chipotle’s roughly 2,250 restaurants. The company is expected to face substantial fines and liability based on the data breach. > Click to read article…

READ MORE

Cyber Security and Business Resiliency

Posted on May 18, 2017
Posted in Updates

The WannaCry Ransomware Attack is the biggest coordinated cyberattack of its kind, impacting countless organizations and infecting hundreds of thousands of computers in more than 100 countries.  Once a computer is infected, the ransomware encrypts and holds for ransom any file it can reach, seizing control of your business or home network. Don’t wait until you are a victim.  CWM can help you establish the right legal policies to manage your business risks and mitigate liability.  We team with highly skilled cyber security experts that can enhance your cyber infrastructure and respond to a data related incident. Cyber security is not just an IT issue; it’s a business resiliency issue with legal implications.  Your employees and customers count on you to be secure.  Call us today to let us help you prepare for the cyber risks of the future.…

READ MORE

Jim Chapman Represents Plaintiff, Receives 100% Treasure Salvage Award in S.S. Central America Case

Posted on September 7, 2016
Posted in Updates

Federal Judge Announces Favorable Ruling in the Matter of the SS Central America and Recognizes the  Contribution of Odyssey Marine Exploration TAMPA, Fla., Sept. 06, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ira Owen Kane, the court-appointed Receiver for the salvor of the SS Central America, Recovery Limited Partnership (RLP), announced today that on August 31, 2016, Chief Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, granted RLP a salvage award of 100% of the fair market value of the items recovered from the 2014 excavation conducted by Odyssey Marine Exploration. Further, Chief Judge Smith awarded title to RLP of all items recovered in order to satisfy the award, the disposition of which will occur under the auspices of the Receiver, subject to approval by Judge Patrick Sheeran of the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio.…

READ MORE

EDVA Judge dismisses case against parent company after finding parent was not “Alter Ego” of Virginia subsidiary

Posted on January 28, 2016
Posted in Cases, Updates

Piercing corporate structures remains tough in Virginia, even if only to show jurisdiction. In a discrimination case brought by an employee of a Virginia-based subsidiary against his employer, its controlling mid-level subsidiary, and the Indiana parent company of both, Judge Conrad of the Western District of Virginia granted the parent company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that (1) the nonresident parent had no direct contacts with Virginia and (2) the jurisdictional contacts of the subsidiaries could not be imputed to the parent. Bennett v. OmniSource Corp., No. 7:14-cv-309 (W.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2015). The Court specifically found that plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard in the Fourth Circuit to show that either the lower-level or mid-level subsidiary was the parent’s “alter ego.” Plaintiff, a sorter in a metal processing facility, did not offer any evidence to rebut affidavits from the parent company indicating that it has no direct contacts with Virginia. Instead, plaintiff argued that the mid-level subsidiary’s contacts with Virginia could be imputed to the parent because the companies share corporate officers and work facilities in Indiana, and because the parent provided guarantees to certain vendors. Under Virginia case law, the Court found such evidence insufficient to show that the parent exercised extraordinary control over the subsidiary, or that the parent was a separate entity in name only. The lesson? Proving alter ego status is fact intensive in Virginia, and merely sharing corporate officers and work facilities may not be enough without other indicators of control.…

READ MORE

Virginia Federal court allows jury in trademark case even where demand came 5 months too late

Posted on January 28, 2016
Posted in Updates

In a Lanham Act case involving pharmaceutical products, Judge Conrad of the Western District of Virginia granted plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial, even though it was made only four months before trial and outside the time prescribed by Rule 38. In Concordia Pharm. Inc. v. Method Pharm. LLC, No. 3:14-cv-16 (W.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2015), exercising discretion under Rule 39(b), the Court found that the Fourth Circuit’s four-factor test had been met: the issues were not so complex that a jury would be incapable of understanding them; granting the motion would not significantly prejudice the defendants; the timing of the motion did not warrant denial since there were still seven weeks to conduct discovery and defendants failed to show how trial preparation would be effected; and a jury trial would not burden the Court’s docket substantially more than a bench trial. The lesson? The standard for granting a party’s untimely jury demand is relatively low in the Fourth Circuit, despite the explicit waiver language in Rule 38.…

READ MORE

Disappointed that PTAB declined inter partes patent review? Tough, EDVA Judge rules

Posted on January 28, 2016
Posted in Updates

The Patent and Trademark Board’s decision on whether to grant inter partes review cannot be challenged in court. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Lee, 1:15-cv-946 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2016), after the PTAB terminated an inter partes review seeking to determine the validity of two patents, the petitioner appealed the decision to federal court. But Judge Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because § 314 of the America Invents Act (AIA) precludes judicial review. The case began with a patent infringement suit against Cardiocom, LLC, which prompted Cardiocom to file a petition for an inter partes review. Medtronic acquired Cardiocom while the petition was pending, and after the PTAB declined to grant Cardiocom’s petition, Medtronic filed its own petition to review the very same patents. The PTAB initially granted Medtronic’s petition, but after further discovery and briefing, determined that Cardiocom should have been named as a real party in interest in Medtronic’s petition and terminated the inter partes review proceedings. Medtronic challenged the PTAB’s decision in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that 5 U.S.C. § 704 allows judicial review of an agency action when no other adequate remedy exists. But the district court held that, while the AIA evinces a strong presumption of judicial reviewability, that presumption is rebutted when a statutory provision explicitly precludes such review. Here, § 314 of the AIA expressly provides that the PTAB’s decision whether to institute inter partes review “shall be final and nonappealable.” The district court further held that it makes no differences whether the PTAB makes its decision at the outset of a request for inter partes review or, as in this case, after previously instituting review proceedings. The lesson? While the AIA allows appeals of final decisions on the merits by the PTAB, it bars review of PTAB determinations at the decision-to-institute stage.…

READ MORE

Date of Mailing Doesn’t Save Payment Bond Claim

Posted on December 17, 2015
Posted in Updates

In a case of first impression in Virginia, the circuit court in Norfolk confirmed that the date of mailing is meaningless to satisfy notice requirements on a state law payment bond claim. The date that matters is the one on which the general contractor receives the notice. Under the Little Miller Act in Virginia, a supplier or subcontractor who asserts a payment bond claim must give “written notice” to the general contractor within 90 days of the last day of work for which payment is sought. Failure to do so bars the claim. In R. T. Atkinson v. Archer Western Construction, the supplier mailed notice of its claim before the 90-day deadline, but the general contractor received it two days after the deadline. Citing similar federal precedent, the state court held that notice is not “given” until the general contractor receives it, so a payment bond claim that is only mailed before the deadline is ineffective. The lesson? Don’t wait until the last minute to assert your bond claim. You just might lose it all. © Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, P.L.C.   This information is educational only; it is not legal advice. CWM attorneys represented the general contractor and surety in the case.…

READ MORE
Lawyer Search