About the Cyberlaw Clinic

Harvard Law School‘s Cyberlaw Clinic, based at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, provides high-quality, pro-bono legal services to appropriate clients on issues relating to the Internet, technology, and intellectual property. Students enhance their preparation for high-tech practice and earn course credit by working on real-world litigation, client counseling, advocacy, and transactional / licensing projects and cases. The Clinic strives to help clients achieve success in their activities online, mindful of (and in response to) existing law. The Clinic also works with clients to shape the law’s development through policy and advocacy efforts. The Cyberlaw Clinic was the first of its kind, and it continues its tradition of innovation in its areas of practice. The Clinic works independently, with law students supervised by experienced and licensed attorneys.  In some cases, the Clinic collaborates with counsel throughout the country to take advantage of regional or substantive legal expertise.

From the Blog

Cyberlaw Clinic Supports Supreme Court Amicus Effort on Patent Damages

The Clinic was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Professor Bernard Chao of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law on an amicus brief that Professor Chao filed in the United States Supreme Court this week.  The brief, submitted on behalf of eighteen intellectual property law professors, supports petitioners’ request that the Supreme Court review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  That decision – Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA, (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2017) – awarded patent damages against petitioners.  But, as amici argue in the brief, the Federal Circuit failed to properly apportion those damages when assessing respondent’s lost profits. 

Cyberlaw Clinic Files Brief for UN Special Rapporteur in Microsoft Ireland Case

On December 13, 2017, the Cyberlaw Clinic filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy Joseph Cannataci in the case United States v. Microsoft, Case No. 17-2.  The case – commonly known as the “Microsoft Ireland case”– presents the question of whether a search warrant issued in the United States pursuant to a U.S. statute (the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703) can compel Microsoft to produce to the U.S. government the contents of an email account stored on Microsoft servers in Ireland.  The Supreme Court is hearing the case this term on appeal from a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the U.S. could not enforce a warrant seeking digital information stored on overseas servers.

Featured

Legal and Ethical Issues in the Use of Telepresence Robots

WeRobotPaperCoverLEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF TELEPRESENCE ROBOTS: BEST PRACTICES AND TOOLKIT (WORKING DRAFT) | March 27, 205 | Spring 2015 Cyberlaw Clinic students Jack Xu and Cecillia Xie teamed up with the Clinic’s Managing Director, Chris Bavitz, and J. Nathan Matias and Chelsea Barabas of the MIT Center for Civic Media to prepare a working draft paper entitled “Legal and Ethical Issues in the Use of Telepresence Robots:  Best Practices and Toolkit.” The paper was submitted for discussion at the WeRobot 2015 conference held April 10 – 11, 2015 at University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, where Cecillia, Jack, Chris, and Chelsea joined discussant Laurel Riek of Notre Dame for a panel discussion. The working draft builds on work the Clinic did with Nate and Chelsea in connection with their “People’s Bot” project and lays the groundwork for development a broader toolkit examining privacy and related concerns that arise in connection with the use of telepresence robots.