Technology companies sell things that are hard to see: code, models, chip layouts, network capacity, and the data running through all of them. Their legal problems tend to follow a pattern. Ownership is unclear, a contract promised something the product cannot do, a competitor hires away the team that knows the source code, or a regulator decides a feature needs rules. MC Law is a litigation and transactional firm focused on intellectual property, technology, and business disputes, founded by a software engineer turned attorney. We read the architecture diagram before we read the complaint, and we draft deals around how the product actually ships. From Washington, DC, and Knoxville, we represent technology companies nationwide.
The Sectors We Cover
Our technology group covers six sectors, each with its own page. Software and IT covers SaaS providers, enterprise software vendors, IT services firms, and the companies that buy from them. Artificial intelligence and machine learning covers model developers and the businesses deploying AI in their products, with questions about training data, outputs, and new state and EU rules. Cybersecurity and data protection covers security vendors and any company holding sensitive data. Semiconductors covers chip designers, fabless companies, and equipment suppliers working through foundry deals and export controls. Telecommunications and media covers carriers, infrastructure owners, and platforms subject to the FCC. Robotics and automation covers companies building machines that sense and act on their own, from warehouse systems to surgical and industrial robots.
Legal Issues Technology Companies Face
Most technology matters start in one of four places. The first is ownership: whether founders, contractors, and employees actually assigned their inventions and code, and whether open source components under the GPL or AGPL impose obligations on your product. The second is contracts, where licenses, SaaS subscriptions, and enterprise agreements set service levels, liability caps, and data rights. The third is regulation, which now reaches privacy under the CCPA and a growing list of state laws, AI under the Colorado AI Act and the EU AI Act, incident disclosure for public companies under the SEC's cybersecurity rules, and export controls under the EAR. The fourth is competition, where patents, trade secrets, and employee mobility decide who gets to use what.
Where IP And Disputes Meet Technology
In technology, intellectual property is the business, so a business dispute is usually also an IP dispute. A customer that stops paying claims the software never worked. A departing engineer takes a repository to a competitor, which raises claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A patent assertion entity targets a feature that has been in the product for years, and the defense turns on claim construction, prior art, and eligibility under Section 101 and the Alice framework. A licensor audits your usage and claims you exceeded the license scope. Because we can read code, logs, and technical specifications ourselves, we find the facts that decide these disputes early, and we explain them to judges and arbitrators in plain terms.
Litigation And Disputes
When a dispute cannot be resolved, we litigate it. We handle patent cases in federal district court and inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission for hardware and semiconductor companies facing exclusion orders, and appeals to the Federal Circuit. We bring and defend trade secret cases, often starting with a motion for a temporary restraining order and forensic review of devices and accounts. We also try the commercial cases technology companies end up in: failed implementations, breached SaaS agreements, disputed earnouts, and fights over source code escrow. Where a contract requires arbitration, we handle the case before the AAA, JAMS, or the ICC.
Transactions And Counseling
On the deal side, we draft and negotiate the agreements technology companies run on. That includes SaaS subscription agreements, enterprise license agreements, master services agreements and statements of work, reseller and OEM deals, data processing agreements, API terms, and the terms of service and privacy policies that sit in front of a product. We handle invention assignment agreements for founders and staff, open source policies, and IP due diligence for investors and acquirers. For AI companies we address training data licensing, output ownership, and customer use restrictions. For hardware and semiconductor clients we handle foundry and supply agreements and export classification questions. Patent work here means licensing, freedom to operate review, and opinions; we do not prepare or file patent applications.
How We Work With Tech Companies
We start by learning the product. That means a call with your engineers or product lead, a look at the architecture, and a clear statement of what you need from us and by when. We then put the scope, staffing, and cost in writing before work begins. During a deal, we turn drafts quickly and flag the terms that actually carry risk instead of marking up every sentence. During a dispute, we build the technical record first, because in technology cases the evidence is usually in the code, the logs, and the commit history. You get direct access to the attorneys doing the work, and regular updates without having to ask for them.
Flat Fees And Written Estimates
Much of what technology companies need is standardized, and we sell that work as flat-fee products with a fixed price, a stated scope, and a set turnaround. Examples include NDAs, terms of service and privacy policies, IP assignment agreements, trademark and copyright registration, and standard SaaS agreement templates. Open-ended work is priced differently. For litigation, contested negotiations, and due diligence on a deal of uncertain size, we scope the matter and give you a written estimate before we start, and we tell you promptly if the facts change the estimate. Either way, you know the cost of the work before you commit to it, and you can plan legal spend the way you plan engineering spend.
