Gabriel M. Ramsey, partner, Crowell & Moring

From seemingly endless litigation from patent trolls to unending threats from cybercriminals, technology companies often find themselves under a daunting legal onslaught. But for those helping such companies push back, it's far from a losing battle.

Just ask Gabriel Ramsey. A former co-leader of the Cybersecurity & Data Privacy group at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Ramsey has represented companies from across the tech world, including Microsoft, Facebook, and Nvidia, in a range of intellectual property (IP) and white-collar crime litigation.

The seasoned litigator recently joined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm's Litigation and Privacy & Cybersecurity practice. He spoke with Legaltech News to discuss his experience helping the tech world push back, and offered his take on the current and future IP landscape.

How do you expect the problem of patent troll litigation to evolve in the near future?

The patent litigation landscape has grown over 20 years with the growth of patent trolls. But I think the biggest development is really in the Patent Office with inter partes review and the menu of options for Patent Office challenges.

The idea is that being able to carry out those processes successfully in a cost-effective way helps level the playing field between the plaintiffs and defendants in those types of patent litigation. So I think that will be a big factor going forward, and it may even change the degree of patent troll litigation if it becomes systematic and widely used.

In what areas of the technology industry is patent litigation most prevalent?

Earlier in the year, I did a study of competitor litigation, looking at where tech competitors are actually suing each other using patents. I noticed two things: One is mobile communications technology patents directed at standards based products is still where all the action is. Second, cybersecurity patents are another area [of high patent litigation]. I think this is because it's a crowded field—there is a lot of money being put into cybersecurity companies, and patents are one aspect that is shaping that spend.

I also see some troll-like behavior around cybersecurity patents, and it seems to me that this may be a place where non-practicing entities are starting to invest in purchasing portfolios and asserting them.

Given that patent infringement and cyber espionage theft are often linked to overseas perpetrators, what strategies are there to fight back?

If we're talking about theft of trade secrets and infringement of tangible, high value IP, the best tools still are to liaison with the U.S. government and become involved in trade and sanction types of conversations. Getting all the tools of government to apply pressure to that problem is good because it's a longer term solution, and it may be the only type of tool that will deter an adversary that is hard to reach.

And if we're talking about more intangible infringement, such as digital assets, it's the same strategy, but you have to develop relationships with governments all over the world in order to convince them to take these issues seriously in a way they otherwise wouldn't.

What was the most interesting experience you had over your career representing internet, new media and tech companies?

I think by far the most interesting thing that I've been involved in is cybercrime enforcement litigation for Microsoft. Bad actors, hackers and the like are persistently targeting Microsoft's products and their environment, and I've had the good fortune of working with Microsoft to develop strategies to essentially fight back. And that's through lawsuits, through partnering with law enforcement agencies, and implementing technical defenses as well dismantling malicious infrastructure that target Microsoft and its customers.

What are some of the most complex or novel cybercrimes you handled?

The technical architectures that are used in many botnets are pretty challenging to take down. So for example, the very first case that we filed of this nature for Microsoft addressed the botnet called “Waldec.”

There have been many man botnets like it that we have dealt with too, but Waldec was unique because it used peer-to-peer communications in its command and control infrastructure. In other words, the place where all the infected end users are getting their instructions is not one single place; it's basically a whole distributed network and it's constantly changing.

So the name of the game is to be very nimble and quick, and watch the infrastructure and take it down when it's most vulnerable, so you can get as much of it as you can.

Gabriel M. Ramsey, partner, Crowell & Moring Crowell & Moring

From seemingly endless litigation from patent trolls to unending threats from cybercriminals, technology companies often find themselves under a daunting legal onslaught. But for those helping such companies push back, it's far from a losing battle.

Just ask Gabriel Ramsey. A former co-leader of the Cybersecurity & Data Privacy group at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Ramsey has represented companies from across the tech world, including Microsoft, Facebook, and Nvidia, in a range of intellectual property (IP) and white-collar crime litigation.

The seasoned litigator recently joined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm's Litigation and Privacy & Cybersecurity practice. He spoke with Legaltech News to discuss his experience helping the tech world push back, and offered his take on the current and future IP landscape.

How do you expect the problem of patent troll litigation to evolve in the near future?

The patent litigation landscape has grown over 20 years with the growth of patent trolls. But I think the biggest development is really in the Patent Office with inter partes review and the menu of options for Patent Office challenges.

The idea is that being able to carry out those processes successfully in a cost-effective way helps level the playing field between the plaintiffs and defendants in those types of patent litigation. So I think that will be a big factor going forward, and it may even change the degree of patent troll litigation if it becomes systematic and widely used.

In what areas of the technology industry is patent litigation most prevalent?

Earlier in the year, I did a study of competitor litigation, looking at where tech competitors are actually suing each other using patents. I noticed two things: One is mobile communications technology patents directed at standards based products is still where all the action is. Second, cybersecurity patents are another area [of high patent litigation]. I think this is because it's a crowded field—there is a lot of money being put into cybersecurity companies, and patents are one aspect that is shaping that spend.

I also see some troll-like behavior around cybersecurity patents, and it seems to me that this may be a place where non-practicing entities are starting to invest in purchasing portfolios and asserting them.

Given that patent infringement and cyber espionage theft are often linked to overseas perpetrators, what strategies are there to fight back?

If we're talking about theft of trade secrets and infringement of tangible, high value IP, the best tools still are to liaison with the U.S. government and become involved in trade and sanction types of conversations. Getting all the tools of government to apply pressure to that problem is good because it's a longer term solution, and it may be the only type of tool that will deter an adversary that is hard to reach.

And if we're talking about more intangible infringement, such as digital assets, it's the same strategy, but you have to develop relationships with governments all over the world in order to convince them to take these issues seriously in a way they otherwise wouldn't.

What was the most interesting experience you had over your career representing internet, new media and tech companies?

I think by far the most interesting thing that I've been involved in is cybercrime enforcement litigation for Microsoft. Bad actors, hackers and the like are persistently targeting Microsoft's products and their environment, and I've had the good fortune of working with Microsoft to develop strategies to essentially fight back. And that's through lawsuits, through partnering with law enforcement agencies, and implementing technical defenses as well dismantling malicious infrastructure that target Microsoft and its customers.

What are some of the most complex or novel cybercrimes you handled?

The technical architectures that are used in many botnets are pretty challenging to take down. So for example, the very first case that we filed of this nature for Microsoft addressed the botnet called “Waldec.”

There have been many man botnets like it that we have dealt with too, but Waldec was unique because it used peer-to-peer communications in its command and control infrastructure. In other words, the place where all the infected end users are getting their instructions is not one single place; it's basically a whole distributed network and it's constantly changing.

So the name of the game is to be very nimble and quick, and watch the infrastructure and take it down when it's most vulnerable, so you can get as much of it as you can.