Skip to content

insights

Recent legal updates and insights from around the world. 

October 8, 2021

GDPR: Four Common Misconceptions About Collecting Personal Data

Whether your business is B2B or B2C, you’ll inevitably run into the question of data collection and GDPR compliance. We’ll break down some misconceptions surrounding data collection so you will have a better idea on how to navigate through GDPR compliance.

Misconception #1: I cannot collect certain personal data.

Generally, GDPR does not restrict the type of data you collect, but it does restrict the circumstances in which you can collect. You can collect all sorts of user data as long as you obtain explicit consent from the user and have proper safeguards against data breach. Keep in mind that there are specific requirements for obtaining a user’s explicit consent which you must follow before you start collecting user’s personal data.

Misconception #2: Business data is also personal data.

Business data is treated differently from personal data. Sometimes the line between what is considered business data and personal data can be blurred, but generally, business data is not personal data that is governed by GDPR. For example, my office email and phone number is considered business data and not my personal data, even though you can identify me using such information.

Misconception #3: I can collect my employee’s information without complying with GDPR.

Many of our clients with subsidiaries or affiliates in the EU mistakenly think that they can receive and make use of employee’s data from their EU offices. That is not the case. Your EU offices have the right to refuse to provide their employee’s information to other offices (or even the headquarter) if the other offices are not in compliance with GDPR. Certain employee data can be considered as personal data and not business data; therefore, governed under GDPR.

Misconception #4: GDPR is the same as your local privacy laws.

Complying with GDPR does not necessarily mean you are in compliance with your local privacy laws. Although much of the laws and regulations may overlap, there are likely differences (even subtle differences) that may put your company at risk of violation. This is why you should consult with your attorney that is familiar with both GDPR and local privacy laws.

Please note that these are general information on GDPR provided for your reference and should not substitute the advice of an attorney. Please contact our office find out more on GDPR compliance for your business.

June 27, 2021

Gogoro-Foxconn’s Global Expansion

Gogoro and Foxconn announced yesterday its partnership aimed to globalize Gogoro’s battery swapping and smart vehicle technology. Gogoro’s founder and CEO, Horace Luke, commented on Gogoro-Foxconn’s plans for expansions, “Our ability to rapidly scale our manufacturing to meet global demands is vital… Together, our companies will be on the forefront of rolling out smart mobility solutions in cities around the world.”  

Foxconn has made several aggressive investments in the global EV ecosystem, including USD 15.5M in AutoCore automobile software, 36M in Gigasolar EV battery, partnership with Thailand’s state-run energy group PTT, and manufacturing deals with Byton and Fisker. At this rate, Foxconn is on its way to become one of the world’s leading manufacturers of EV’s. 

March 12, 2021

Largan Precision Proceeds with Share Acquisition after Settlement with Ability Opto-Electronics

Largan Precision Co., and Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co., has been in an IP litigation battle since 2012. Shortly after the announcement of a settlement agreement, Largan announced on Tuesday on the Taiwan sTock Exchange of its acquisition of 15.2 percent stake in Ability. As a result, shares of Ability jumped 10 percent, while Largan’s shares dropped by 1.5 percent. 

 

Largan, one of the largest supplier of camera lenses, alleged IP infringement against Ability as well as Samsung Electronics Co., Newmax Technology Co., and HP Inc. over the years. In 2017, the Intellectual Property Court ruled in favor of Largan and ordered Ability to pay NTD 1.52 billion in damages. 

 

The settlement with Ability was reached last week and the acquisition of Ability’s stake is part of the terms of the settlement. The terms of the settlement agreement remain confidential and it may be too early to tell whether this settlement is a win-win for Largan and Ability. 

February 4, 2021
Huawei and Verizon Enters “Private Mediation” 

A year ago, on February 5, 2020, Huawei filed a patent infringement litigation at the US Eastern District Court of Texas against US telecom giant Verizon demanding USD 1 billion in licensing fees. This sparked political outrage in the US as Huawei is on the US government’s blacklist for both mobile and 5G network infrastructure. 

In the latest development, the US Patent and Trademark Office refused to consider Verizon’s four petitions to invalidate Huawei’s patents, stating that the patent trial for the case is approaching too quickly for the PTAB to consider the petitions. The patent infringement case is temporarily on hold for a private mediation between Huawei and Verizon. 

It is unclear at this point whether Huawei’s motives for its litigation campaign are monetary driven or politically driven. If the latter is true, we may see a long dragged-out litigation or a series of litigations against US telecoms.

January 27, 2021
US-China Trade War Intensifies with Mandatory SEP Licensing Fee Bill

The “Protecting American Innovation and Development Act of 2021” (appropriately named, “PAID”) bill was introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe yesterday. This bill would give the Department of Commerce authority to stop Chinese import and sales of wireless technologies covered by standard essential patents (SEP) in the United States. During a press release, Inhofe stated that Chinese companies often sell wireless products in the US that use US patents without paying licensing fees to the patent owner. 

Typically, a patent owner would have to file a complaint and litigate for years at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to obtain such a result. This bill would require the Department of Commerce to maintain a list of Chinese companies that are selling wireless products in the US that are not paying any licensing fees. Companies on this list would be required to engage in negotiations and agree to pay licensing fees within 12 months; otherwise, their products would be banned from being sold in the US. 

This bill, if passed, essentially forces Chinese companies to pay fees to US companies prior to selling wireless products in the US. Even if license fees were paid to a US company, it does not exclude other companies from filing patent infringement litigations against the Chinese company using different SEPs for seeking further compensation.

January 19, 2021
Foxconn Advances with EV Development in JV with Geely and Baidu.

Foxconn Technology Group and Zhejian Geely Holding Group made their strategic cooperation official by entering into a new JV each with 50% stake. The JV is to provide consulting and manufacturing services relating to eclectic vehicles, drive systems and automotive ecosystems platforms. Geely and Foxconn plans on helping automakers to quickly and smoothly transition into the EV market.

At the same time, Geely announced they have plans for another strategic partnership with Baidu, focusing on developing intelligent electric vehicles. This partnership will focus on research and development utilizing the Sustainable Experience Architecture, an open-source electric vehicle architecture.
Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd is listed on the Hong Kong Exchange. 

January 18, 2021
Apple’s Patent for a Foldable Device Rumored to be Tested by Foxconn.
On Thursday, the USPTO published a continuation patent from Apple relating to a foldable device. A continuation patent is a patent that follows or extends an earlier filed patent to include additional claims to an invention previously disclosed that has not been issued or abandoned. In this case, Apple added 20 claims to its previous patent. 

Back in November of last year, Patently Apple reported a rumor that Apple has been working with several suppliers on a foldable device. Last week, Taiwan United Daily News reported that foldable devices with folding hinges were tested at Foxconn’s Shenzhen factory.

January 15, 2021
IBM Once Again Boasts the Highest Issued Patents of the Year at the USPTO.
Taiwan Companies Sees an Increase in Global Issued Patents.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued 352,017 patents in 2020, of which 9,130 are patents filed by International Business Machine (IBM). Followed by second place, Samsung, with 6,415 issued patents. IBM’s patents focus on technology related to hybrid cloud, artificial intelligence and data security. This is not surprising as the market observed a strong push towards cloud data, the success of which depends heavily on AI to process and analyze big data and data security.

  • Samsung Electronics may be taking second place at the USPTO, but takes first place in global patent application and issued patents.

  • Taiwanese companies’ awareness in global patent rights protection and FTO have increased, resulting in a growth of 5.1% in total global issued patents in 2020.

January 16, 2021
The US Government Continues to Expand its Blacklist. 
Amongst the Chinese companies blacklisted by the US government, Xiaomi Corp., became a new member of the blacklist along with 8 other companies. The military blacklist by the US Department of Defense targets companies that the government suspects to have military ties. The military blacklist differs from the Commerce Department’s entity list, which notoriously blocked US companies from supplying components to Huawei. 

The inclusion of Xiaomi onto the blacklist will likely alarm its shareholders as the company’s supply of chips and other components may be jeopardized. Xiaomi confirms that it is not owned, controlled or affiliated with the Chinese military, and not a “Communist Chinese Military Company” as defined under the US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

Xiaomi’s shares in Hong Kong dropped 11% after the announcement of the blacklist 

  • Soak and Pounce: 1920’s Style Submarine Patents
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 6, 2026

    by Dennis Crouch Long before patent lawyers coined the term “submarine patent,” practitioners had a different name for the same mischief. I was reading through briefing in the old laches case of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U.S. 126 (1920) where respondent’s counsel Paul Synnestvedt described the practice of letting an application Soak in the office for years until the trade had  independently developed the invention, when the applicant would come out with a divisional application and pounce upon the unfortunates who had proceeded to build up a business on the invention. Soak and pounce.  It isn’t clear to me if Synnestvedt was intending “soak” to be in the same hidden-under-water sense as submarining, or if it was more of a marinade. Either way, the complaint is that applicants were using the Patent Office’s procedures to lie in wait while industry invests in technology, then emerging with claims calibrated to capture those investments by others. The case involved deep well pump technology. The Chapmans filed their original patent application in 1909 with 34 claims and a lengthy specification. The application met “unusual difficulties” at the Patent Office and was still pending six years later. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Patently Unreasonable: Hyatt’s Return to the Supreme Court and the Fight Over Prosecution Laches
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 5, 2026

    Does prosecution laches survive SCA Hygiene? Hyatt v. Squires asks the Supreme Court whether equity can override the Patent Act’s statutory timing rules. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Two Rejections Per Allowance
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 5, 2026

    USPTO office action data from 2005-2026 reveals a dramatic halving of the rejection-to-allowance ratio, with Acting Director Stewart’s backlog push visible in late 2025. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Forthwith, Part II: CIT Orders Refunds for All Importers, Not Just Litigants
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 5, 2026

    CIT Judge Eaton orders CBP to stop applying struck-down IEEPA tariffs and extends refund relief to all importers, not just those who filed suit. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • The Law/Fact Lever: How the Federal Circuit Can Control Obviousness Outcomes
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 4, 2026

    Federal Circuit reverses PTAB on obviousness in Medivis v. Novarad, illustrating how recasting fact disputes as legal errors bypasses deference. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Federal Circuit Dissent Rates Collapse After Newman’s Removal
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 3, 2026

    Empirical analysis of 4,850 Federal Circuit opinions shows Judge Newman authored 303 dissents. Two full years after her departure, dissent rates have collapsed from 19% to under 6%. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Guest Post: Design Patents at the ITC
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 3, 2026

    The ITC’s GoPro v. Insta360 exclusion order reveals a troubling willingness to ignore claimed design elements when analyzing design patent infringement. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Cleaning House: Director Squires Responds to Examiner Conflict-of-Interest Scandal
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 2, 2026

    USPTO Director Squires orders patent examiners to recuse from any application where they hold stock. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Forthwith: Federal Circuit Issues Mandates in V.O.S. Selections, Clearing the Way for $175 Billion Refund Reckoning
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 2, 2026

    Federal Circuit issues mandates in V.O.S. Selections tariff case after Supreme Court holds IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs. Importers scramble for refunds. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • Intitled to Tie Him Up: Can 18th-Century Chancery Practice Restore Patent Injunctions?
    by Dennis Crouch (Patently-O) on March 2, 2026

    DOJ and USPTO back NPE injunctive relief for third time as Collision Communications invokes 1789 Chancery practice to challenge post-eBay framework. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.

  • SpaceX Leaves Delaware; Should Others Follow?
    by Dillon Reid (Strictly Business) on May 22, 2024

    On January 30, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court voided Elon Musk’s $55.8 billion compensation package as CEO of Tesla, ruling it unfair to shareholders. In response, Musk criticized Delaware and announced plans to transfer SpaceX’s incorporation to Texas, with Tesla potentially following. This decision has sparked debate among business owners about incorporating in Delaware. Despite the controversy, Delaware remains a popular state for incorporation due to its established legal framework, specialized courts, and favorable regulations. The post explores the implications of Musk’s actions and the ongoing relevance of Delaware for business incorporations.

  • Earnouts: Pitfalls for the Unwary Seller
    by Michael Pass (Strictly Business) on March 18, 2024

    Earnouts can bridge valuation gaps in M&A deals, but careful drafting is crucial. Sellers should negotiate clear calculation methodologies, specific covenants for the buyer’s post-closing operation of the business, and robust dispute resolution procedures. Proper structuring of earnout provisions can help manage seller expectations and reduce the likelihood of future disputes.

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: The Corporate Transparency Act
    by Dillon Reid (Strictly Business) on February 29, 2024

    On January 1, 2024, previously enacted federal legislation called the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) went into effect. The CTA aims to assist law enforcement in tackling money laundering, tax fraud, terrorism financing, and various other illicit activities facilitated by anonymous shell companies. Here we briefly discuss the basics of the CTA and how certain

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: M&A Purchase Agreements
    by Nicole Swisher (Strictly Business) on February 12, 2024

    The purchase agreement is key in M&A transactions, detailing conditions for closure, business terms, asset delineation, due diligence, post-closing recovery, and transition covenants. Styled based on the transaction (asset, stock, merger), it’s drafted post-due diligence, varying in length. It includes parties involved, assets, liabilities, purchase price details, closing process, representations, warranties, tax matters, other covenants, indemnification, and miscellaneous provisions. Structure is driven by buyer and seller preferences, affecting asset or stock purchase decisions and tax implications.

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: A First-Time Seller’s Guide to Due Diligence
    by Trey Woodall (Strictly Business) on January 25, 2024

    Selling your business is not just about finding a buyer and agreeing on a price. Once the basic terms of the deal are agreed upon in a letter of intent, the buyer will want to sift through your business and legal records with a fine-tooth comb. This meticulous review of your business from contracts to customer lists is called due diligence. Due diligence allows the buyer to uncover risks when buying a business.

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: A First-Time Buyer’s Guide to Due Diligence
    by Trey Woodall (Strictly Business) on January 11, 2024

    Due diligence is the buyer’s process of discovering and evaluating information about a seller’s business to confirm that acquiring the seller’s equity or assets is a sound investment. However, the process of conducting due diligence differs between transactions for a variety of reasons. Factors such as the deal structure (equity purchase versus asset purchase), cost, the unique qualities of the seller, and time constraints affect how the buyer’s deal team approaches due diligence.

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: M&A Letters of Intent
    by Michael Pass (Strictly Business) on December 22, 2023

    This article discusses the memorialization of purchase offers in a letter of intent (LOI) in M&A transactions. An LOI outlines key terms of the deal but is non-binding. It includes provisions like exclusivity, confidentiality, expenses, and non-solicitation that may be binding. Careful drafting is essential to avoid potential risks. Properly considered, an LOI is a valuable tool for M&A deals, guiding parties through negotiations with caution.

  • The Process of Buying or Selling a Business: An Introduction to the NDA
    by Dillon Reid (Strictly Business) on December 12, 2023

    This blog post discusses the importance, elements, and exceptions of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) when selling a business. Key points include the priority for sellers to sign an NDA before disclosing sensitive information, the necessity for clear definitions of what the NDA covers, guidelines for sharing information, the term length of NDAs, and remedies in case of a breach. Despite its protection, enforcing NDAs can be challenging, advising selective information sharing.

  • The QSBS 5-Year Holding Period and Section 83(b): the Founder’s Perspective
    by Mark Wilson (Strictly Business) on December 7, 2023

    For high-growth startups, these tax benefits are often well worth the time and brainpower spent planning and structuring for the requirements imposed by Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, to fully take advantage of these benefits, understanding and navigating the 5-year holding period requirement under Section 1202 is essential. In this article, we’ll explore one common scenario that illustrates a key consideration with respect to the holding period from the founder’s and advisor’s perspective.

  • Understanding Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS)
    by Mark Wilson (Strictly Business) on November 29, 2023

    Founders and startups need to consider Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS), which offers extensive tax advantages, for their corporate structure. QSBS awards tax benefits to shareholders of companies that meet specific eligibility requirements, including the company being a C-corporation and having assets below $50 million. These benefits mainly include partial or complete exclusions of capital gains from federal income tax. Early planning and knowledgeable advice are crucial for optimization.