Monitoring Texas Legislature Bills Regarding Day Light Savings Time

If you are tired of Daylight Savings Time, you are in good company.

Texas State Senator Jose Menendez pre-filed SB 190 and Texas State Representative Lyle Larson pre-filed HB 49 in the 2019 Legislature (86th Leg.) to formally exempt Texas from the Uniform Time Act of 1966.  80 Stat 107. The UTA of 1966. 

Text of SB 190
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/SB00190I.pdf#navpanes=0

Text of HB 49
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB00049I.pdf#navpanes=0

How to Monitor these or other bills in the Texas Legislature.

Create a free account in MyTLO. Then determine if you want to create bill lists, alerts, save searches, explore mobile device support, or determine how to set RSS feeds.

If you don't have an account, click LOGIN in the top right corner, then NEW USER for the registration panel. You will be asked for your email address, challenge question and answer, and a password. 

You may click on each image to expand it for a larger view.

Create a free MyTLO account

MyTLO Panel

Creating a Bill List

Setting alerts on the two Daylight Savings Bills

Summation

1. Receive e-mail notification when bills on your list have significant actions.
2. Bills may be added three ways: manually entering the bill number, adding the bill number from the bill history page, or adding the bill number from a text or bill search results page.
3. You may also receive alerts when bills are assigned a bill subject.
4. Special postings: receive e-mail notification for committee hearing notices.

DALL President Jenny Wondracek in ABA Journal

Check out the ABA article featuring DALL President Jennifer Wondracek!!! Professor Wondracek is bringing The Matrix to law school!

The Matrix

How are law schools using virtual reality tools in classrooms?

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/virtual_reality_augments_law_school_curricula/

CFTC Request for Information about Crypto-Asset Mechanics and Markets

The CFTC has posed 25 questions under five categories to better understand Crypto Currencies and Markets.

Please submit your comments before February 15, 2019.
You may submit comments, identified by the title, ‘‘Virtual Currency RFI,’’ by any of the following methods:

• CFTC website: https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions to Submit Comments through the website.
• Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

Topics with example questions

1. Purpose and Functionality
   What was the impetus for developing Ether and the Ethereum Network, especially relative to Bitcoin?
2. Technology
   How is the technology underlying Ethereum similar to and different from the technology underlying Bitcoin?
3. Governance
   How is the governance of the Ethereum Network similar to and different from the governance of the Bitcoin network?
4. Markets Oversight and Regulation
   How would the introduction of derivative contracts on Ether potentially change or modify the incentive structures that underlie a proof of stake consensus model?
5. Cyber Security and Custody
   Are there any best practices for conducting an independent audit of Ether deposits?

Further questions and information may be found at this URL.

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/2018-27167a.pdf?utm_source=govdelivery

LabCFTC released a new Primer on Smart Contracts

LabCFTC is the focal point for the CFTC’s efforts to promote responsible financial technology (FinTech) innovation and fair competition for the benefit of the American public. LabCFTC is the hub for the agency’s engagement with the FinTech innovation community.

LabCFTC has two important goals:

• To promote responsible FinTech innovation to improve the quality, resiliency, and competitiveness of our markets.
• To accelerate CFTC engagement with FinTech and RegTech solutions that may enable the CFTC to carry out its mission responsibilities more effectively and efficiently.

The Core LabCFTC Components are GuidePoint and CFTC 2.0.

GuidePoint facilitates FinTech innovation development with the CFTC, helps innovators understand the CFTC's regulatory framework (RegTech), and shares feedback about new innovative technology.

CFTC 2.0 promotes adoption of new technology through use cases and other models.

FinTech Primers: virtual currencies and smart contracts

The first primer, about virtual currencies, may be accessed here.

To read a copy of the most recent primer on smart contracts, click here.

Innovators who are working on a technology that may be regulated or supervised by the CFTC may contact LabCFTC@CFTC.gov for further exploration.

How will an alert from Congress.gov display in my email?

Setting alerts is a new feature requiring that you set up a free account in order to receive notifications of changes in a Congressional Bill. Click on the images below to expand them for better readability

To set an alert, first find your bill, then click Get Alerts. You will be asked to confirm the alert. For further information about alerts with Congress.gov - https://www.congress.gov/rss#get-alerts.

Finding and Setting up the Alert

Expect this in your email

Expect this when managing your Alerts

Alerts can always be modified or terminated with a few clicks.

ABA Formal Opinion 483. Lawyers’ Obligations After an Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack

On October 17, 2018, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 483, Lawyers’ Obligations After an Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack, which addresses the duties and obligations to inform clients when a data breach or cyberattack occurs.

Under the Duty of Competence the lawyer has an obligation to monitor for a data breach, stop the breach and restore systems, and determine what occurred.

There are five factors guiding the lawyer in the duty of confidentiality: the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyers' ability to represent clients.

The lawyers' obligations to provide notice of data breach are spelled out for current and former clients.

Breach notification requirements address the type of breach, the sufficiency of disclosure to allow the client to make an informed decision, and as a best practice the lawyer should inform the client of the plan to respond to the data breach.

Should PII, or personally identifiable information be compromised, the lawyer should evaluate the obligations under state and federal law.

Formal Opinion 483 relies upon Model Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 5.1 and 5.3 and Formal Opinion 477R (Securing Communication of Protected Client Information).

A copy of Formal Opinion 483 may be accessed from the ABA.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_op_483.pdf

A listing of state security breach notification laws may be accessed from the National Conference of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/security-breach-notification-laws.aspx

The Texas state laws affecting data breach may be accessed in the Texas Business & Commerce Code at §§ 521.002, 521.053

Proposed Federal Court Rules Amendments Published for Public Comment

The US Courts wants your input to rule changes!

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Evidence Rules published proposed amendments to their respective rules, and requested that the proposals be circulated to the bench, bar, and public for comment. 

The comment period opened August 15, 2018 and closes February 15, 2019. Read the text of the proposed amendments and supporting materials: 

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018_proposed_rules_amendments_published_for_public_comment_0.pdf 

The proposed rule changes are:

• Appellate Rules 35, 40;

• Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 2004, 8012;

• Civil Rule 30;

• Evidence Rule 404.

Comments and supporting files must be submitted electronically using the Regulations.gov portal.  After choosing the appropriate link below, click the "Submit a Comment" link. This will display the comment web form.  You can then enter your submitter information and attach your comment as a file (up to 10MB), or type your comment directly on the web form. When you have finished attaching or typing your comment, click the "Preview Comment" link to review. Once you are satisfied with your comment, click the "Submit" button to send your comment to the advisory committees. Upon completion, you will receive a tracking number for your submission.

• Submit or Review Comments on the Proposed Amendments to Appellate Rules 35 and 40
• Submit or Review Comments on the Proposed Amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 2004 and 8012
• Submit or Review Comments on the Proposed Amendment to Civil Rule 30
• Submit or Review Comments on the Proposed Amendment to Evidence Rule 404

Private Investment Project Procedures. New Changes for P3s

The Federal Transit Administration has made substantive changes in a final rule describing new, experimental procedures to encourage increased project management flexibility, more innovation in project funding, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new project revenue streams for public transportation capital projects. It will modify 49 CFR Part 650,

A primary goal of this final rule is to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships (P3s) and private investment in public transportation capital projects.

What it does

1. Amended the definition of ‘‘Eligible Project’’ to require a project be included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450.
2. Amended section 650.11 to permit one application per phase of a project, and to clarify that multiple waivers or modifications may be sought in one application.
3. Amended section 650.21 to require reporting to FTA one year after construction is complete, and for projects that include private investment in operations and maintenance, a report is required two years after the project has entered into revenue operations.
4. Amended section 650.31 to permit applicants to identify proposed, as well as committed funding for the project, and to provide that FTA will post on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted. 

The final rule, which goes into effect June 29, 2018, was published May 30, 2018 in the Federal Register, Volume 83, Number 104, page 24672.

SEC Action Lookup – Individuals

 

The SEC offers a new research tool; SEC Action Lookup - Individuals, or "SALI."
Search for individuals who have been named in SEC administrative proceedings, or SEC federal court actions.
Features:

• At this point the scope is October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018. There are plans to add more information later.
• Find judgments or orders only.
• Pending case information is not included.
• Search Tips.
• Information for the Individual Investor.

 

https://www.sec.gov/litigations/sec-action-look-up

Guidance on the impact of SAS on AIA trial proceedings

The PTAB will host a “Chat with the Chief” webinar on Monday, April 30, 2018, from noon to 1 p.m. ET to discuss the SAS decision, its impacts on AIA trial proceedings, and answer questions.
Guidance on the impact of SAS issued April 26, 2018
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial

New Trials. As required by the decision, the PTAB will institute as to all claims or none. At this time, if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.
Pending Trials. For pending trials in which a panel has instituted trial on all of the challenges raised in the petition, the panel will continue with the proceeding in the normal course. By contrast, for pending trials in which a panel has instituted trial only on some of the challenges raised in the petition (as opposed to all challenges raised in the petition), the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.
Order Supplementing an Institution Decision. Upon receipt of an order supplementing the institution decision, the Petitioner and Patent Owner shall meet and confer to discuss the need for additional briefing and/or any other adjustments to the schedule. While the Board may act sua sponte in some cases, additional briefing and schedule adjustments might not be ordered if not requested by the parties. Additionally, the parties may agree to affirmatively waive additional briefing or schedule changes. After meeting and conferring, the parties then shall contact the Board to discuss any requested additional briefing and/or schedule changes. It is expected that the parties will work cooperatively amongst themselves to resolve disputes and propose reasonable modifications to the schedule. Any remaining disputes shall be raised in a conference call with the Board. For details, the parties are commended to the order supplementing the institution decision entered in their particular case, and shall follow the instructions provided by the Board in such order.
Final Written Decision. The final written decision will address, to the extent claims are still pending at the time of decision, all patent claims challenged by the petitioner and all new claims added through the amendment process.

The SAS Institute Decision.
SAS INSTITUTE INC. v. IANCU, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL.  16-969. April 24, 2018.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-969_f2qg.pdf
Holding:
"When the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it mustdecide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged. The plain text of §318(a) resolves this case. Its directive is both mandatory and comprehensive. The word "shall" generally imposes a nondiscretionary duty, and the word "any" ordinarily implies every member of a group. Thus, §318(a) means that the Board must address every claim the petitioner has challenged. The Director’s "partial institution" power appears nowhere in the statutory text. And both text and context strongly counsel against inferring such a power."