Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack Update 7-9-21 Podcast

Here is the latest on the Kaseya VSA supply-chain ransomware attack which is interesting because there is now strong interplay between the United States government and companies like Kaseya given the national security implications of this type of ransomware attack. Please feel free to listen to this podcast with a brief update on the government involvement in the response to this ransomware attack and on the type of directives that the federal government is now giving out through government agencies like the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the FBI. It was widely reported that the CEO of Kaseya on 1st notification of this ransomware attack contacted the federal government and spoke with national security officials at the White House and in the Department of Homeland Security. Obviously, every ransomware attack will not necessarily invoke this high-level government response, but more and more the government is involving itself in the investigation and response to these attacks which have been heavily linked to entities like REvil which is alleged to be based in Russia. Pres. Biden today allegedly called Pres. Putin to once again warn him regarding the cybersecurity attacks and he promised in the media that there would be a response from the United States. For more information on the specific CISA-FBI recommendations in response to the Kaseya VSA supply-chain ransomware attack see this link to the CISA website: https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/current-activity/2021/07/04/cisa-fbi-guidance-msps-and-their-customers-affected-kaseya-vsa . See the link below for my short podcast with this update.

Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack Update 7-9-21 PIT IP Tech Cast

Here is the latest on the Kaseya VSA supply-chain ransomware attack which is interesting because there is now strong interplay between the United States government and companies like Kaseya given the national security implications of this type of ransomware attack.
  1. Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack Update 7-9-21
  2. Kaseya VSA Server Ransomware Attack July 2021 – Lessons and Protocols for Dealing with Data Breach
  3. The Rise of Counterfeiting Litigation in Federal Courts

Kaseya VSA Server Ransomware Attack July 2021 – Lessons and Protocols for Dealing with Data Breach

Podcast:

Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack Update 7-9-21 PIT IP Tech Cast

Here is the latest on the Kaseya VSA supply-chain ransomware attack which is interesting because there is now strong interplay between the United States government and companies like Kaseya given the national security implications of this type of ransomware attack.
  1. Kaseya VSA Supply-Chain Ransomware Attack Update 7-9-21
  2. Kaseya VSA Server Ransomware Attack July 2021 – Lessons and Protocols for Dealing with Data Breach
  3. The Rise of Counterfeiting Litigation in Federal Courts

Blog:

See Kaseya CEO Video response presentation: https://www.kaseya.com/

See Updates Regarding VSA Security Incident Response: https://www.kaseya.com/potential-attack-on-kaseya-vsa/

In any Cyber incident, Data breach, hack or unwanted email intrusion, like the recent Kaseya attack, Incident Response (IR) time is of the essence. The Business and Cybersecurity Litigation lawyers at Houston Harbaugh, P.C., are here to assist in addressing the cybersecurity issues facing companies today. A comprehensive set of issues must be addressed to aid companies in minimizing the risk of cybersecurity breaches and to aid companies not if, but when, a data breach occurs. Ransomware, e-mail spoofing, text and phone call spoofing, e-mail intrusion, phishing and other schemes are running rampant in the business world. Sophisticated companies are falling prey to wire fraud schemes and ransom attacks at an alarming rate. These victims frequently turn to their insurance carriers but the maze of seeking insurer indemnity and defense for these matters is complex. Our firm can help work through that maze on both the technical side of investigation and on the mitigation side including the analysis of insurance coverage options. Our litigation lawyers are well equipped to handle IR and to tackle both the initiation of, or defense of, litigation related to these cyber security breaches and losses.

Data breaches are one of the biggest risks facing companies today. Companies must take action to prepare for the worst and to react quickly when it happens on both the technical side and the legal side. Our firm can cyber-counsel on corporate structure issues, insurance coverage, employment law, HIPAA and personal and health care data issues, and protection of data through proper technology infrastructure, technology rules and policies, corporate and employment policies and litigation if necessary. Cybersecurity takes a team to protect companies and their data through security programs, security awareness training, annual security audits and Incident Response. A cyber incident or intrusion which results in a breach of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) may trigger certain legal reporting requirements. See (Westlaw’s link): Pennsylvania Statutes 73-2301: Breach of Personal Information Notification Act. A link to the actual Pennsylvania statute can be found hereHere is a summary of the Pennsylvania Notification Act:

  • Enacted in 2006, Pennsylvania’s data breach notification law requires entities doing business in Pennsylvania that maintain, store, or manage computerized personal information of Pennsylvania residents to notify affected individuals of any data breach that results or could result in the unauthorized acquisition of their unencrypted and unredacted personal information.
  • Notice must be made without unreasonable delay
  • If more than 1,000 individuals must be notified, breached entities must also notify all consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.
  • Breached third parties must notify relevant data owners or licensees.
  • Substitute notice is permitted in specific circumstances and notification may be delayed for law enforcement purposes.
  • Entities which maintain their own notification procedures as part of an information security policy consistent with state law are deemed to comply with the notification requirements of this law if the entity makes notifications in accordance with its policies.
  • Financial institutions compliant with the Federal Interagency Guidance Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Consumer Information and Customer Notice are deemed to comply with this law, as are entities that comply with relevant notification requirements of federal regulators.

Our firm can help guide you through these reporting requirements but it is best to be prepared in advance. We can help you prepare and can refer you to good technical people for up front assistance.

Data breaches are the ultimate sneak attack. A company’s computer systems can be breached for weeks, months and even years without the breach being detected. Once detected, what action must the company take? A team that includes attorneys, company executives, law enforcement, IT and human resource management should be in place and prepared to address the various problems that arise. These problems include legal issues —regulatory compliance, protection of intellectual property, recovery of losses, and litigation —technical issues, notification issues, customer relations, public relations, and insurance issues.

Houston & Harbaugh cybersecurity attorneys have presented both regionally and nationally the following topics: “The Potential Consequences of Data Breach on Compromise or Infringement of Intellectual Property” and “Protecting Your Business in the Digital Age”. To read more about this topic and to see legal resources regarding Cybersecurity and Data Breach Response, please see this website’s Resource Library. 

Contact Our Pennsylvania Cybersecurity Attorneys Today: Houston Harbaugh can help your company take action to minimize the threat from data breaches and to guide you through IR. For immediate help on data breach or ransomware response, contact HH Shareholder Henry Sneath by email now to databreach@hh-law.com or call: 1-833-511-2243   

The Rise of Counterfeiting Litigation in Federal Courts

Not surprisingly, with the massive sale and transport of goods through Amazon and Alibaba, we are seeing and handling in the courtroom litigation world a lot of actions involving alleged counterfeiting and resultant sales of products on these website marketplaces. These claims involve the freezing of the Amazon Sellers’ financial accounts with Amazon through Federal Court Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) and preliminary injunctions and are being brought primarily pursuant to Federal Statutory Law, potentially allowing for recovery of attorneys fees and punitive damages. These cases are being filed as though they were class actions or mass tort cases, and involve sometimes hundreds of defendants. Most defendants suffer judgment against them by default for failure to answer the complaint, even though the courts are waiving normal service of process rules and are allowing service of the complaint on these defendants by email. Many are foreign entities with fictitious names and in many cases they choose simply to forfeit the amount of money that they have in their Amazon account. Their entire Amazon account is frozen even if the allegedly infringing sales are very small and make up only a small portion of their Amazon funds. These suits fall generally into two camps:

Camp one generally consists of allegations of Federal Lanham Act violations like trademark infringement, false advertising, false designation of origin, counterfeiting and “knock-off”. See: https://www.hh-law.com/intellectual-property-audits-application-prosecution-protection-litigation/trademarks/

Camp 2 is the allegation of patent infringement by the alleged knock-off products. See:  https://www.hh-law.com/intellectual-property-audits-application-prosecution-protection-litigation/patent-infringement/

While these two variations sound similar, they each require a solid understanding of either or both, the Lanham Act/Trademark Law or an understanding of patent law on infringement and USPTO proceedings. There are actions filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and in many other federal jurisdictions. Our Houston Harbaugh law firm intellectual property group which I chair is prepared to prosecute or defend these matters and I can be reached at sneathhm@hh-law.com or 412-288-4013.

Pittsburgh Law Firm @HoustonHarbaugh Announces Formation of #CovidLaw Response Group

www.CovidLawResponse.com

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an array of legal issues that many of our clients and peers are suddenly faced with addressing at a rapid pace. At Houston Harbaugh, we have assembled a designated CovidLaw Response Group to assist our clients and relay updates and information as they continue to unfurl (See our COVID-19 Law newsletters and blogs at: www.CovidLawResponse.com). Members of the group can be found below:


Our lawyers in this group are closely monitoring and assisting clients with all COVID-19 related issues in the following areas:

  • Business Litigation
  • Business Loan Programs- EIDL and SBA Loan Programs
  • CARES Act
  • Corporate Law
  • Employment Law including Return to Work Policies and Templates and PA State Orders for Workplace Safety and Health
  • Environmental Law
  • Families First Coronavirus Response Act- Paid Sick Leave and Amendments to FMLA
  • HHS Grants for Medical Practices- EIDL and PPP Program
  • Insurance Coverage including Business Interruption and Civil Authority
  • Intellectual Property
  • Paycheck Protection Program- Forgiveness and Certifications
  • Probate Estates & Trusts Litigation
  • Real Estate Leasing and Financing
  • Retirement Plan Contributions, Distributions and Loans
  • Stay at Home Orders
  • Unfair Competition and Counterfeiting


We are here to help navigate these new and challenging matters and are equipped with the technology to safely and thoroughly consult with our clients. Please reach out with any questions. 

www.CovidLawResponse.com

Tags: CovidLaw, COVID-19, Covid Law Response, CoronavirusLaw Response GroupPittsburgh law firm

Related Posts: COVID-19 Responses Allow Cafeteria Plan FlexibilityPennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Request To Exercise “King’s Bench” Jurisdiction Over All State Court COVID-19 Coverage CasesCoronavirus Workplace Infection Control PolicyInsurers and Amici Resist Application for Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Exercise of King’s Bench Jurisdiction Over COVID-19 Coverage Cases

Redefining Your Business Strategy for Post #Covid – 19: A Free @Simio Webinar Tomorrow May 7, 11:00 AM – #DataSimulation*

How do you plan for today and the future in a time of uncertainties? Do you simply wait out the pandemic, or apply analytics to develop workable strategies that keep your business functional?  

This FREE and short Simio webinar TOMORROW on May 7th, 2020 at 11:00 am ET (3:00 pm UTC) will share insights that will allow you to see how you can apply simulation to evaluate different response scenarios for your business.  
  Tomorrow’s webinar will give a glimpse into data simulation and how it can be used to predict outcomes based on your available options. It will also showcase the importance of data simulation modeling in providing insight for capacity planning and predictive analytics during a pandemic and a post-pandemic scenario. Stakeholders, managers, and decision-makers will learn valuable lessons on advanced planning and resource management using Simio as an analytical tool. This webinar will also help employees across every industry understand why certain decisions are been taken and the importance of resource management.  Regardless of your industry, you will learn how to apply simulation to enhance daily operations and manage complex processes.  
Presenters: 1) Dan O’Neil, Health Systems Innovation Lead at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 2) Adam Sneath, Application Engineer at Simio.
Click Here to Register Today: or use this link to Simio, LLC in Pittsburgh: https://www.simio.com/resources/webinar/2020-05-07-Simio-Webinar.php

* This announcement is not providing legal advice or is it in any way an endorsement of SIMIO by any lawyer or law firm, but merely a suggestion of a possible resource for businesses and individuals as businesses and health care facilities re-open. Houston Harbaugh and Henry Sneath are not involved in the content development, nor presentation of this program.

Supreme Court Bars Time-Bar Appeals In PTAB Cases

ByCarissa T. Howard of Counsel at Houston Harbaugh

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) decisions on the timeliness of administrative patent validity challenges are not appealable to Article III courts.

Inter partes review proceedings give an accused infringer the right to challenge the asserted patent’s invalidity before the USPTO, provided that such challenges are timely filed within one year of the complaint for patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruling in Thryv v. Click-to-Call Technologies gives the USPTO almost unfettered authority to decide whether a party properly sought review under the America Invents Act (“AIA”) within the one year, or was in privity with a supplier, business partner or other party who had been sued. The ruling is a blow to patent owners, who have frequently challenged inter partes review proceedings on those grounds and won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

But letting patent owners tie up proceedings with timeliness appeals cuts against the AIA’s goal of weeding out bad patent claims efficiently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for 7-2 majority. Doing so would “tug against that objective, wasting the resources spent resolving patentability and leaving bad patents enforceable,” Ginsburg wrote.

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the time-bar is “both a constraint on the agency’s power and a valuable guarantee that a patent owner must battle the same foe only once,” and the PTO should not have “freewheeling authority” to interpret it.

The case is Thryv Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies LP, case number 18-916, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

For more see, https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1246469/breaking-supreme-court-bars-time-bar-appeals-in-ptab-cases?nl_pk=85f4326a-8e56-4fad-9fe8-a41f009140e5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip

Carissa T. Howard is an intellectual property attorney with over 16 years of experience, Carissa’s practice is focused in federal court intellectual property litigation, patent prosecution, trademark prosecution, intellectual property counseling, and contract drafting. She also has experience in intellectual property licensing and preparing due diligence, infringement and validity opinions. She can be reached at howardct@hh-law.com or 412-288-2213

#3M® Sues NJ Based #PerformanceSupply, LLC for #N-95 Mask #Trademark Infringement and #Covid Related #PriceGouging

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/search/?Ntt=n95+masks

Plaintiff #3M® Company filed suit in the USDC SDNY on Friday against New Jersey based Performance Supply, LLC alleging Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Endorsement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Trademark Dilution, NY State Law Deceptive Acts and Practices, and seeking Injunctive Relief and Exemplary Damages. 3M indicates in the suit that any recovery of damages will be donated to Covid-19 related charities. See the Complaint as filed here:

3M claims that Performance Supply falsely tried to obtain a purchase order and sell through a quote to the City of New York, millions of #N-95 Respirator Masks to be used in the battle against #Covid-19. Performance allegedly used the 3M marks (including the TM phrase “3M Science. Applied To Life”®) and 3M references liberally in its proposal and sought to confuse and deceive NY City into believing that Performance Supply and 3M were aligned and working together on the offer to sell masks. Further, the lawsuit alleges that Performance engaged in price gouging in seeking to charge NY prices that were 500-600% above 3M’s list price.

3M alleges that its marks are incontestable, arbitrary and strong and have long been associated with safety masks and equipment. They stress that during this Corona virus crisis, 3M HAS NOT INCREASED ITS PRICES and that this marks a strong comparison to Performance which is accused of price gouging and other business torts under both Federal and NY State Laws. Performance, sought a purchase order from NY through a quote sent to NY’s procurement director. In its formal quote, Performance states that “acceptance of the purchase order is at the full discretion of 3M…” This is alleged by 3M to show a false designation of origin and false endorsement by 3M of the quote. 3M is represented by Mayer Brown LLP.

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esquire Co-Chair Litigation Practice Group and Chair of the IP Practice Group: Houston Harbaugh, P.C.  401 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222. Sneath is also an Adjunct Professor of  Law teaching two courses; Trade Secret Law and the Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition at Duquesne University School of Law. Please contact Mr. Sneath at 412-288-4013 or sneathhm@hh-law.com

#CARESAct Passes Congress: See link here to the Act which is meant “To provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the 2020 #coronavirus #pandemic.” #Covid #CoronaUpdate

Here is the #CARESAct passed this week by both houses in full for easy reference:

#HoustonHarbaugh will be publishing various opinions and guides to the provisions of the CARES Act in the near future.

#ClassAction Lawsuit Challenges #Pennsylvania #Governor #Wolf’s #COVID-19 #Closure Order

Commonwealth of Pa. Flag

What appears to be the first constitutional challenge to #Pennsylvania Governor #Wolf’s #Covid-19 Closure Orders has been filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District (Philadelphia) Federal Court. In Schulmerich Bells, LLC et al v. Thomas W. #Wolf (Governor of Pa.) and Rachel Levine, M.D. (Pa. Sect of Health) the Plaintiffs bring class action and declaratory judgment claims challenging the constitutionality of the Governor’s Covid-19 mitigation closure orders which shut down the physical operations of many Pennsylvania businesses deemed not to be “life sustaining”. See the Complaint here:

The Complaint begins with the “takings” quote from the 5th Amendment as cited in Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) that the guarantee that “private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Interesting start in this context. The theory appears to be that the Governor has placed the “cost of these closure orders – issued for the benefit of the public – squarely upon the shoulders of private individuals and their families” without just compensation. Schulmerich, from Bucks County, is alleged to be the oldest manufacturer of orchestral quality musical handbells in the US.

Schulmerich repairs handbells and chimes and claims that Spring and Summer are its busiest seasons. Plaintiff’s claim a trickle down effect for their employees, suppliers, performing customers and so on. The company has already laid off 9 workers. The purported class is broad and appears to contemplate inclusion of anyone affected by these orders. Alleged exclusions from the class include inter alia, any persons unemployed at the time of the orders, and any persons working for companies deemed to be “life sustaining”, which were not ordered to be closed. The Plaintiffs claim that the class members could number in the millions. We will monitor this and other similar lawsuits.

Covid 19: Health First, Lawsuits Later?

It would be great if in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, that the world could simply focus on health, safety, family and employee issues, but the lawsuits have started. We will monitor them as they will ramp up. Many state and federal courts are shutting down or slowing down so it is unclear when the Covid related suits will actually see a day in court. In New Orleans, an interesting, (albeit somewhat disturbing in the timing), lawsuit has been filed seeking a declaratory judgement against the Governor of Louisiana and global insurer Lloyds of London. Plaintiff Cajun Conti – Oceana Grill Restaurant is seeking property and business interruption insurance from Lloyds, even before they have apparently made a claim. The suit before insurance claim and denial is odd. The suit may be politically motivated. The lawsuit is attached hereto.

Plaintiff restaurant seeks “property damage” for virus contamination of its restaurant, and “business interruption” coverage for the obvious shutdown brought about by government order. If you subscribe to Law360 there is an interesting write-up at: http://tinyurl.com/qscl9m8 “Oceana Grill, which is in New Orleans’ French Quarter, argued that its “all risk” policy with the Lloyd’s underwriters should kick in under the circumstances, noting that the policy doesn’t contain any provisions excluding coverage for losses stemming from viruses or global pandemics.” (Law360) “In its suit, Oceana Grill noted that its policy with the Lloyd’s underwriters requires the existence of a “direct physical loss” to property for coverage to apply. According to the restaurant, that requirement is satisfied by the coronavirus pandemic, given that the virus can remain on surfaces for days. Both Governor Edwards and Mayor Cantrell cited concerns over possible physical damage to properties to support their restrictions.” (Law360)