Will IP Departments Get Security Budgets?
Cybersecurity is too important and significant to organizations not to have its own budget.With the recent hack of an intellectual property law firm for…
July 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Cybersecurity is too important and significant to organizations not to have its own budget.
With the recent hack of an intellectual property law firm for M&A activities, it's clear that security operations for IP departments are a necessary measure. As they currently stand, budgets simply don't exist internally for IP IT teams to keep up with all the security monitoring and trends for these systems.
Hanley Chew, of Counsel, Litigation Group at Fenwick & West, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss whether IP departments will get security budgets. Chew focuses his practice on privacy and data security litigation, counseling and investigations, as well as IP and commercial disputes affecting high technology and data driven companies. He regularly advises companies large and small on data breaches and cybercrimes, network and data security, and internal investigations.
“I believe that IP departments will begin getting their own security budgets,” he told us. “Many organizations still do not have a separate security budget. Cybersecurity is still a subset of the IT budget. The dynamic, however, is changing. Given the increase in the number, severity and notoriety of cyberattacks, there is a growing recognition by organizations that more specialized resources need to be devoted to cybersecurity preparedness and response.”
The recent epidemic of global ransomware attacks and large scale data breaches have raised awareness that protecting your organization's networks is a priority. So, according to Chew, the best way to do so is to designate specific individual(s) who have the knowledge and experience to deal with data security incidents with the responsibility for cybersecurity and provide them with resources to carry out their duties.
However, there is no one-size-fits-all remedy as different organizations have different resources and needs and face different challenges, he said. The structure of a security operation should be tailored to the individual circumstances of each organization. In general, an organization should place responsibility for cybersecurity in individual(s) with the right knowledge and skills. Organizations may want to establish a CISO and place all cybersecurity functions under his or her control, or have someone with cybersecurity expertise join the Board, or establish a committee of the Board responsible for cybersecurity.
So, why don't budgets exist internally for IP IT teams?
Currently, separate budgets do not exist internally for IP IT teams in many cases because of bureaucratic inertia, per Chew. In the past, IP IT teams reported to and fell under the control of the Finance Department or another departments. Thus, budgets for the IP IT teams was subsumed by the budgets of these departments.
“In the past 10 years, IP IT departments have become their own administrative departments in several organizations,” he explained. “As the awareness of the importance of cybersecurity has grown, more organizations have begun devoting additional resources to IP IT teams, establishing independent infrastructure for those teams, and hiring specialized personnel.”
Overall, Chew believes that IP departments do need separate security budgets. Given the growing number and complexity of cyberattacks from individuals, organizations and even nation states, the best way to guard against these attacks is to dedicate resources to the cybersecurity function.
He said, “Subsuming the security budget into a larger budget often makes it more difficult to devote the appropriate funds to cybersecurity as different functions compete for the same resources. Cybersecurity is too important and significant to organizations not to have its own budget.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250