Various studies indicate that an overall lack of charging infrastructure serves as an impediment to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the road to transportation electrification is officially under construction following several major state investments. At the end of May, in the largest single state-level investment in EV charging infrastructure, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved more than $760 million worth of transportation electrification projects by the State’s three investor-owned utilities. View Full Post
On June 19th, a group of diverse businesses from a variety of industries announced the formation of the Transportation Electrification Accord (“Accord”). This announcement signaled an increasingly firm consensus around the importance of open, resilient, and cooperative approaches to transportation electrification — and major companies and organizations, some of whom have not previously been active in this realm (such as the Edison Electric Institute, Southern Company, AEP, GM, and Honda) have come together around this effort. View Full Post
In a decision that defines how the Fourth Amendment applies to information collected in the digital age, the Supreme Court today held that police must use a warrant to obtain from a cell phone company records that detail the location and movements of a cell phone user.  View Full Post
IoT Update: Supreme Court’s Carpenter Decision Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Location Data In a decision that defines how the Fourth Amendment applies to information collected in the digital age, the Supreme Court today held that police must use a warrant to obtain from a cell phone company records that detail the location and movements of a cell phone user.  View Full Post
Last month, the China Nation Drug Administration (CNDA, formerly known as China Food and Drug Administration or CFDA), released a draft rule on Inspection Key Points and Guiding Principles of Medical Device Clinical Trials (“New Draft”). This is the third draft rule related to medical device clinical trial inspections that CNDA has issued in the last two years. View Full Post
On June 20, 2018, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking comment on proposed changes to HUD’s 2013 regulations concerning the Fair Housing Act’s “Disparate Impact Rule” (the “Rule”).  The changes are primarily intended to ensure the Rule is consistent with the U.S. View Full Post
Earlier today, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it will host a series of public hearings on whether “broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection enforcement law, enforcement priorities, and policy.” FTC Chairman Joe Simons noted that “important and significant questions recently have been raised about whether we should rethink our approach to some of these issues,” and expressed that “[w]e are excited about this new hearings project, and anticipate and look forward to substantial participation from our stakeholders.” The FTC’s press release noted that the “multi-day, multi-part hearings” will be similar to the FTC’s “Global Competition and Innovation Hearings,” which took place in 1995 at the direction of then-Chairman Robert Pitofsky.  View Full Post
Change is afoot at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Since Director Andrei Iancu took office in February and declared “creating a new pro-innovation, pro-IP dialogue” a top priority, the agency has experienced a flurry of activity.  Beyond the significant shift in its rhetoric on intellectual property, the USPTO has moved to “increase predictability of appropriately-scoped claims,” and has initiated a full review of the process governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  View Full Post
Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained a bid protest challenging the agency’s decision to exclude the protester from consideration based on a potential organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”).  The GAO decision serves as a reminder that an offeror that is excluded from a competition on the basis of a perceived OCI can challenge that decision in a protest before GAO.  View Full Post