Published on:

If you have ever been involved in a federal civil lawsuit, you may be familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  The FRCP are a set of rules that regulate federal civil lawsuits. The rules address issues from court and party obligations to enforcement of remedies. The FRCP was first adopted by order of the Supreme Court in 1937 and placed into effect in 1938.

On December 1, 2015, these rules were amended. Many of the changes affect electronic discovery (e-discovery). Prior to the internet age, discovery and discoverable evidence were primarily based upon paper transactions.  With the rapid rise of the web, many started to turn to electronic storage of information.  As the data and information-storage landscapes began to change, the rules had to change.

The amendments brought changes to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, and 55.  The amendments also brought on the abrogation of Rule 85 and the Appendix of Forms. The changes that affect e-discovery are as follows:

  • Rule 16: Shortens timing for scheduling orders by 30 days. Scheduling orders must be done within 90 days after the defendant is served or 60 days after the defendant has appeared. The scheduling order can now include the preservation of electronically stored information.

By including the preservation of electronically stored information in the order, the defendant is on notice to preserve information. This includes requiring the defendant to stop automatic purging policies, at least to the relevant data.

  • Rule 26: Places a limit on the scope of discovery. Discovery must be proportional and reasonable. The court may also limit the frequency of discovery requests and the extent of such requests if they are deemed out of scope.

The limitation of scope on discovery is important for e-discovery because of the large volume of electronically stored information and the cost of delivering such items. Ultimately, the court makes a benefit-burden analysis to determine whether a particular item is discoverable. The amended changes also deleted a voluminous section that referred to conducting discovery to identify how or where the information is stored. This allows for the complaining party to depose the opposing party’s information technology team in order to determine how and where the information is stored within the network system.

  • Rule 37: The loss of electronically stored information allows the jury and/or judge to presume the lost information was unfavorable to the party.  The loss of information could allow for the dismissal of the action or the entrance of a default judgment.

This is a controversial amendment because of the long-standing practice of purging old electronically stored information. Many companies have an automatic purging policy for electronically stored information. By engaging in this policy, companies can get in trouble for not preserving relevant information in a lawsuit years after the incident occurs.

The changes are in effect for all proceedings commenced on or after December 1, 2015. It is also in effect for pending proceedings commenced after April 26, 2015, as long as, it is just and practicable. On April 26, 2015, the Supreme Court adopted the amendments.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, e-discovery, and technology-related issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

The internet has become the home to many advances in the world. With one click of a button, a person can communicate with another person located on the other side of the world. With another click of a button, a person can buy a shirt and have it delivered right to his/her doorstep in a matter of days. Not only has the internet made things more convenient, it has become a tool in starting a business. Besides finding a tutorial to create a website, inventors can now fund their projects to bring their ideas to reality through crowdfunding. The inventor simply places his idea on a crowdfunding website, e.g., Kickstarter or Indiegogo, and sends the link to a large group. Depending on the invention’s popularity, the entrepreneur can raise a high amount of money with little effort.

Crowdfunding is starting to become a viable source of funding for startups. According to Forbes, crowdfunding is predicted to overcome venture capitalists next year.  Although, crowdfunding has made it easier to create a business, it does not come without legal problems. One of the biggest issues is intellectual property. From patent trolls, to patent infringement, crowdfunding websites have found themselves under attack by businesses.

In late 2012, 3D Systems brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Formlabs.  3D Systems alleged both direct and indirect patent infringement for its three-dimensional printing technology. This lawsuit came after Formlabs collected over $2 million from its crowdfunding campaign to put its three-dimensional printer into production. Formlabs was planning on selling the printer for less than 3D Systems’ printer, leading to the filing of the complaint. No answer was ever filed in the original suit, but a series of time extensions indicated that the companies were looking for a settlement. In late 2013, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed and a settlement looked imminent.

However, one year later, 3D Systems filed another patent infringement lawsuit against Formlabs in another district. Rather than claiming patent infringement on one patent, 3D Systems was claiming patent infringement for eight patents. This time, Formlabs requested an extension of time to answer the complaint.

The two companies conducted negotiations outside of the courtroom, and in late 2014, the court ordered a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. The case dismissal indicated that the two companies had reached a settlement.  At the time the dismissal was known to the public, there was no disclosure of their settlement terms. However, several days later, the details of the settlement were leaked to the public. The highlight of the settlement was that 3D Systems would collect an 8% royalty from all of the Formlabs sales.

Although, Formlabs was a small startup funded through crowdfunding, it has become a constant player of the three-dimensional printing industry, i.e., large enough to be considered as a threat to its competitors.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, trade secret protection, and intellectual property issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

ZeniMax Media, Inc. (“ZeniMax”) is a company that develops and publishes video games. These games include Fallout and Elder Scrolls. ZeniMax publishes the video games through its subsidiaries and has found widespread success in the gaming market. With that widespread success, ZeniMax was able to allocate funds for the development of virtual reality gaming.

In April 2012, a ZeniMax employee started communicating with Palmer Luckey. At the time, Luckey was a college student working on a virtual reality headset prototype named Rift. The ZeniMax employee took interest in Luckey’s creation and offered some help in its development. Luckey then sent the ZeniMax employee a copy of his prototype where the employee and other ZeniMax personnel added their own improvements. After their improvements, ZeniMax entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Luckey to share the enhancements made on the prototype, including its use in a game ZeniMax developed.

After the prototype became a working model, ZeniMax performed demonstrations at the Electronic Entertainment Exposition. The demonstrations were only done by appointment. After adding his own modifications and merely days after the exposition, Luckey started to commercialize the headset under a newly-formed company called Oculus VR.

With the commercialization of the Rift headset, Oculus received money via Crowdfunding. Through Crowdfunding, Oculus was able to raise $2.4 million. In 2014, with its widespread popularity, Facebook bought Oculus for $2 billion. There are plans to release a consumer version of the headset in early 2016.

In May 2014, ZeniMax sued Oculus VR, claiming Oculus VR misappropriated trade secrets. In the complaint, ZeniMax claimed that Oculus and Luckey did not have the “necessary expertise or technical know-how to create a viable virtual reality headset.” It was claiming Luckey and Oculus could not have developed Rift without the help and support of ZeniMax and its personnel. However, the complaint did not list the stolen intellectual properties.

With the widespread success of Oculus and the headset, ZeniMax is seeking compensation for the misuse of its intellectual properties, including trade secrets and copyrighted programs.

As a response, Facebook and Oculus filed a motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the argument and stated that the Non-Disclosure Agreement was neither specific nor did it provide consideration for keeping the information secret. The judge also dismissed the argument that ZeniMax did not take the reasonable steps to protect the trade secrets.

With the dismissal of the motion to dismiss, the court set a jury trial date for August 2016. In December, Mark Zuckerburg was ordered to give a deposition in order to testify under oath.

The legal problems for Oculus do not end there. Another lawsuit was filed against founder Palmer Luckey and Oculus. This lawsuit was filed by Total Recall Technologies, a Hawaii-based Technology company that hired Luckey in 2011 to create a virtual reality headset. Total Recall Technology alleges Luckey had stolen the idea and breached a confidentiality agreement. On January 16, 2016, the judge allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed, but dismissed every other claim.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, trade secret protection, and intellectual property issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

On October 30, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted rules allowing the use of crowdfunding by companies to offer and sell securities. Crowdfunding is the raising of money in cyberspace through portals, i.e., specialized websites like Gofundme, Indiegogo, Kickstarter. By using these portals, individuals or businesses can engage in fundraising in order to promote ideas to a large group of potential investors.  Crowdfunding has become a handy tool in new projects since it is another method for a small business to raise capital.  The SEC is seeking to regulate these practices and to protect investors since startups and entrepreneurs can raise capital through this revolutionary method.

For example, Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (“JOBS”) Act created an exemption in the securities laws to allow crowdfunding to be used for offering and selling securities. The exemption called for the final rules, Regulation Crowdfunding, to administer such offerings and sales. The rules allow for crowdfunding securities transactions within certain limits. The limits include the amount that could be raised through crowdfunding, requirement of disclosure of certain information to investors, and creation of a regulatory framework for the funding portals, which facilitate the transactions.

In essence, some of the rules are:

  • Companies can only raise $1 million through crowdfunding in a 12-month period
  • If the investor’s annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, he/she is limited to the greater of either: (a) $2,000; or (b) 5% of the lesser of his/her annual income or net worth
  • If the investor’s annual income or net worth is equal to or more than $100,000, he/she can only invest 10% of the lesser of the annual income or net worth

The rules also indicate that certain companies will not be eligible for exemptions under Title III.  These companies include non-U.S. companies and commercial entities that have no specific business plan.  Another restriction is that securities cannot be resold for one year.  Furthermore, all relevant transactions must be done through an SEC-registered intermediary.

The information that must be disclosed, includes, but may not be limited to, the following:

  • The company’s financial condition
  • Method for determining price
  • Target offering amount and deadline
  • Financial statements

The rules would require the intermediary to: (i) provide educational material that explains the process of investing, types of securities offered, and information a company must provide; (ii) provide communication channels for discussions about offerings; and (iii) disclose to investors the compensation the intermediary receives for the transaction.

The rules also prohibit the intermediaries from the following: (i) providing a platform for a company that has potential for fraud or other investor protection concerns; (ii) having a financial interest in a company that is offering or selling securities on its platform that is not meant for compensation for its services; and (iii) compensating a person for providing the intermediary with sensitive information of an investor or potential investor.

At this time, Regulation Crowdfunding will be effective 180 days after its publication in the Federal Register. However, forms that allow portals to register with the SEC would be effective on January 29, 2016.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business start ups, conducting business over the internet, and more. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

Trade secrets are important assets for a business and derive their value due to their secrecy.  Trade secrets constitute confidential business information that give a competitive edge to their owner.  They include industrial, manufacturing, or commercial secrets.  Any unauthorized usage of a trade secret is a violation.  With secrecy, a business can develop an advantage over its competition. By placing the value in its secrecy, the information is subject to outside forces attempting to steal the valuable information. By placing the information on a network server accessible through the Internet, a business organization’s vulnerability increases. Rather than simply risking disclosure by a disgruntled employee or being a victim of corporate espionage, businesses can now find themselves at risk of unauthorized access, i.e., hacking. The Internet allows information to be quickly and easily disseminated all around the world. Information can be accessed by anyone who has access to a computer and the Internet. With the borderless nature of the web, it would be difficult to subject users to the laws and regulations protecting trade secrets. As a result, the United Nations created the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in order to address issues regarding intellectual property, which includes, but is not limited to, trade secrets.

The purpose of WIPO is to create a worldwide intellectual property system that fosters creativity and innovation. Currently, there are 188 members, including, the United States and United Kingdom. WIPO’s services include dispute resolution to intellectual property-related cases such as arbitration and mediation. It provides an annual forum for governments, intergovernmental organizations, and industry groups to meet and discuss issues.

International standards for trade secret protection are similar to the formula adopted by over 100 members of the World Trade Organization. The standard is published as a part of the TRIPS Agreement.  For example, Article 39 states that members must protect undisclosed information (e.g., trade secrets) from unauthorized use that is contrary to honest commercial practices. Also, the information must be secret in nature and there must be reasonable steps to protect the secrecy. Also, Articles 42-49 call for civil proceedings to enforce the standards.

As stated earlier, with the advent of the Internet, it is easier to obtain confidential information. A common situation of cyber espionage is spear phishing. Spear phishing is when a hacker sends an email with information taken from social media to trick the recipient into believing the message is authentic. Once the link is clicked, the malware enters the recipient’s computer and goes through the network to gain access to confidential information. Once the hackers obtain the information, it is then sold to other entities on the black market. However, it is difficult to trace these incidents.  It is difficult to trace them due to the anonymous nature of the Internet.  It is also difficult to trace them because companies will not find out their systems have been compromised until it is too late.  By keeping these problems in mind, governments should continue to modify, update, and enforce the applicable regulations.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, trade secret protection, and intellectual property issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

Trade secrets are vital to a business’s growth and development.  From a practical standpoint, the advantage a business may have vanishes once the trade secret is publicly known. As a result, businesses have employed various methods to prevent the leaking of trade secrets. From confidentiality agreements to encryption, a smart business should attempt to prevent the risks. However, these efforts may not be enough, calling for the need of regulation. In general, the applicable regulations primarily clarify the definitions, parameters, and remedies for trade secret theft.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) has been adopted in forty-seven states and the District of Columbia. It defines a trade secret as information that derives economic value from its secrecy and is subject to reasonable effort to maintain its secrecy.

The use of a trade secret does not automatically constitute misappropriation. Under the UTSA, misappropriation is defined as acquisition of information through improper means or the disclosure or use of another’s trade secret when it is known or should be known it was acquired through improper means, accident, or mistake. It defines improper means to include “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.” Also, there is no statute of limitation for trade secret infringement claims under this statute.

Under the UTSA, the remedies available for trade secret infringement include damages, profits, reasonable royalties, and injunction. Damages could be both actual loss and unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation. The injunction would call for the enjoinment of actual or threatened misappropriation. However, the injunction can be terminated when the trade secret no longer exists. The injunction can be continued for a reasonable period after the non-existence to terminate any commercial advantage the misappropriation created.

What is the law for states that have not adopted the UTSA?

Three states have not adopted the UTSA. For example, New York is one of those states. New York does not have any trade secrets laws and relies primarily on the common law. New York’s definition of trade secrets is confidential information a business uses to create an advantage over its competitors. This differs from the general definition since it does not require the advantage to be an economic one.

However, like the UTSA, New York has created civil liability for misappropriation of trade secrets. Also, the stealing of trade secrets can create criminal liability under the state’s criminal larceny statute. New York defines misappropriation as a disclosure of trade secrets acquired through improper means or through a breach of confidentiality. The remedies available are limited to injunctive relief and damages. There is, however, a statute of limitation on trade secret infringement claims. In New York, the statute of limitation is three years from the discovery of the misappropriation.

Also, the other states that have not adopted the UTSA are Massachusetts and Texas. Both states either follow the common law or have their own statute on trade secret protection.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, trade secret protection, and intellectual property issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

What are trade secrets?

In general, the definition of a trade secret varies from state to state. Essentially, it means any confidential information you would not want your competitors to know about. This could be anything from customer lists, marketing plans, to business models. Although, this definition is broad, it is important to look at the exact definition of what is a trade secret according to the applicable jurisdiction. In California, a trade secret is defined as information that takes independent economic value from its confidential nature subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Here, California’s definition of a trade secret places a focus on economic impact. This differs from states such as New York where the law simply defines a trade secret as information that would give an advantage over a competitor. See Ashland Mgt. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 407 (1993). In comparison, New York has a broader definition than California and covers any non-economic related trade secrets.

Why is protection necessary?

Let’s imagine that you are a founder of a tech start-up that was named one of the most innovative companies of 2015. During the last team meeting of the year, you share plans with your team for the upcoming year. The plans include information crafted by you and members of the team and is projected to give the company an advantage over its competitors. A competing company finds out about the meeting and steals away your right hand man. With that, your legal department has already failed to prevent the former team member from sharing your company’s 2016 plans. Now your competitor has access to your new plans and your anticipated advantage is now hindered.

In the current competitive market, situations like these can come to fruition when trade secrets are not properly protected. There are certain regulations protecting trade secrets, but most only protect secrets that are illegally taken or accessed without authorization.

How can you protect yourself?

Depending on which laws apply, companies can require new hires to sign various documents in their efforts to protect trade secrets. These documents can include a non-compete agreement, non-solicitation agreement, non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement, and telecommuting agreement.  The non-compete agreement binds the new hire to a key position from working for a competitor for a limited time.  The non-solicitation agreement prevents a former employee from attempting to get a current employee to join a competing company. The non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement prevents the former employee from disclosing information to both third parties and unauthorized internal employees. Lastly, the telecommuting agreement makes sure a remote employee knows the confidentiality policy of the work environment.  These agreements are meant to protect all confidential information, especially any information that would constitute a trade secret. However, the enforceability of these agreements is dependent on the jurisdiction and in-house counsel should use them when suitable.

Other methods of protection include implementing company policies, training, marking documents as confidential, and conducting exit interviews to remind the employee of the legal documents he/she executed during employment. However, even when the company engages in all efforts to prevent the spread of trade secrets, it should always have a trade secret breach plan. This plan can involve anything from retaining outside counsel in advance, to knowing which law enforcement agency to contact in the event of a breach.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to business, trade secret protection, and intellectual property issues. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down its decision in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation.  This lawsuit was against the defendant and its subsidiaries for their failure to implement proper cybersecurity measures and protect consumers’ personal information against hackers.  The FTC alleged that defendants did not use encryption, firewalls, and other commercially reasonable methods for protecting personal information.

What was the basis of the lawsuit?

In general, the FTC has the responsibility to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices. These illegal practices could range from false advertising to antitrust issues. The FTC has started to prosecute companies with inadequate cybersecurity to protect consumer data. The companies that made false statements about their level of security in their terms of service also had lawsuits filed against them.  In this case, between 2008 and 2009, hackers breached Wyndham Worldwide Corporation’s network and computer systems three separate times. One incident occurred in 2008 and two occurred in 2009.   The hackers were allegedly able to breach the network due to the use of weak and obvious passwords, lack of response to the first incident, and inadequate monitoring systems.  In one of the instances, it took approximately two months for Wyndham Worldwide Corporation to discover its systems had been accessed without authorization. The hackers successfully accessed personal information of approximately 619,000 consumers and managed to cause $10.6 million in fraudulent charges. Therefore, on June 26, 2012, the FTC brought the lawsuit against defendants.  Their motion to dismiss was denied by the district court and their appeal was heard on two issues in order to determine whether there was a valid claim.  The issues that were raised included: (1) whether the FTC had authority to regulate cybersecurity under 15 U.S.C. § 45; and (2) if so, whether defendants received fair notice that their cybersecurity practices were inadequate under the guidelines.

What is the effect of the ruling?

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling against the motion to dismiss for lack of standing and allowed the FTC to continue with its lawsuit.  So, in essence, this ruling affirmed the FTC’s authority to bring lawsuits against companies for their lack of cybersecurity measures under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and (n).  The appellate court then determined that defendants could not claim that they lacked fair notice because they were making that claim under the understanding that they needed ascertainable certainty of FTC’s cybersecurity standards. For civil cases, the standard of notice does not need to be as high as in a criminal case and defendants had notice that they needed cybersecurity measures in place, especially after the initial security breach.  In recent years, the FTC has continuously filed lawsuits against companies that have not protected their customers’ privacy.  In order to protect a business from such lawsuits, it is important for companies to implement proper security measures, protect private information, and to not misrepresent the extent of their security measures provided towards consumers.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to technology, privacy, and cyber-related activities. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

In general, intellectual property, includes, copyright, trademarks, and patents (collectively “IP”).  According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols, names and images used in commerce. Now, when it comes to the use of intellectual property, what is considered fair use?

What is fair use and how does it affect intellectual property right?

There are multiple ways to protect or claim your intellectual property. When an individual believes that its intellectual property has been misappropriated (i.e., taken without consent), it has the right to demand that it be removed or notify the hosting organization about the infringement, so that they can remove it. The services of a lawyer should be obtained if any of these steps fail. However, before any of these steps are taken, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which is codified under 17 U.S.C. section 512, recommends that the individual making the claim considers whether the use of their intellectual property is fair use. Fair use is defined under 17 U.S.C. § 107, where it states that copyrighted material may be used so long as it is for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, . . . scholarship, or research” and it will not be considered an infringement of the copyright. The following factors are evaluated to determine fair use: (1) purpose and character of use; (2) nature or type of work used; (3) amount of the work used; and (4) effect using the copyrighted work will have on its use for the author or creator. When deciding whether to demand removal, redaction, or whether to pursue a legal case alleging misappropriation, individuals should be aware of their legal rights and relevant factors.

What happened in Lenz v. Universal Music Corporation?

In Lenz v. Universal Music Corporation, the district court addressed how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires that copyright holders consider fair use before they make a claim of infringement. In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Corporation and its subsidiaries for false claims in a takedown notification. By failing to consider fair use principles, a triable issue was raised before the federal court. Before a takedown demand is made, the holder of the copyright must have a subjective good faith belief that the material was taken and used without consent. Misrepresenting that a copyright holder has a good faith belief before issuing a take down notice is a violation.   The summary judgment motion by Universal Music Corporation was denied and plaintiff was allowed to seek damages for its violation. This case acts as a warning for copyright holders to consider fair use principles before issuing takedown notifications. Those with questions regarding their intellectual property rights or those who have received takedown notifications should seek legal assistance.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to technology, intellectual property, and business transactions. You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.

Published on:

The term RFID is everywhere these days. Consumers are seeing RFID blocking wallets, credit card holders, and passport covers as the holidays approach. However, many still do not know what it is and how it is used in their every day life.

What is RFID?

RFID stands for “Radio Frequency Identification” and is a term used to describe technology that makes identifications via radio waves. It is usually discussed in conversations and articles about the Internet of Things because it is a form of automatic identification. The term automatic identification covers a broad range of identification technologies, from bar codes to retinal scans, used by machines to make identifications. The identification of people or objects occurs through the use of microchips that store electronic information. The microchip has an antenna and the information is picked up through a reader using radio waves. The microchip can be as small as a grain of sand and made out of silicone. Although, this technology has been in use since World War II, it has only become widely used in the past two decades as costs have decreased. RFID technology is now used in certain products and businesses. Walmart and other stores use RFID technology to keep track of products and consumer activities. They use RFID to do anything from detecting an item about to be stolen as it exits the door, or trigger cameras when an item is removed from the shelf. Anyone who has ever used the EZ-Pass toll roads has experienced the use of RFID technology as it is used to identify cars with EZ-Pass. Nonetheless, this is just a limited representation of the use of RFID technology to track consumers and products.

What are the concerns and disputes connected to RFID?

Security and privacy are the main issues facing the use of RFID. Even though RFID technology is used everywhere, it recently started to become a term recognized and used to promote RFID blocking products. RFID theft and tracking can be blocked with certain metals and materials. Travelers and consumers are now using products containing these metals to protect themselves from high-tech pick pockets and companies tracking consumers. This is because thieves around the world have had to adapt to the changing technologies. There is little cash to gain from a wallet when people rarely carry cash, but the information gained from scanning a credit card can be valuable. The hardest part of using an RFID reader to obtain information is to decode the information. Although, security is a large concern, privacy of consumers is also an issue for the government. As of now, nineteen states have implemented RFID privacy laws, not including the laws governing RFID use in driver’s licenses, bar codes, or other usage. There is a widely-held concern that companies are starting to track consumers. Consumers are tracked to see what they are picking up from the shelves or target them for advertisements, which compliment their recent choices. Civil rights and consumer privacy groups are now expressing their concerns over the use of RFID.

At our law firm, we assist clients with legal issues related to technology, privacy, and constitutional rights.  You may contact us to set up an initial consultation.