Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

As we wrote on last week, the recent NCAA settlement has ushered in a new era for college athletics—one with unprecedented legal, financial, and operational consequences. Join Morgan Lewis partners, including technology transactions, outsourcing, and commercial contracts partner Don Shelkey, for a two-part webinar series that will examine the regulatory, business, and litigation risks forming the future of college sports.

On June 6, 2025, the Northern District of California in House v. NCAA approved a landmark settlement deal allowing colleges and universities to pay their students directly for their participation in college athletics. The deal between the National Collegiate Athletic Association, its conferences, and lawyers representing NCAA Division I athletes marks another major shift in the NCAA’s policies around the amateurism of student athletes and in their performance compensation. The settlement deal is already raising legal questions in the world of collegiate athletics.

Open-source software (OSS) and artificial intelligence (AI) are commonly used terms in today’s rapidly evolving tech landscape. Both are pivotal in shaping modern technology but are rooted in different goals and philosophies. OSS promotes collaboration and transparency, while AI looks to mimic human behaviors. Despite their objective differences, there are intriguing intersections between OSS and AI, which this article will explore.

The rapid adoption of generative AI (gen AI) is driving increased cloud consumption.

In the case of the ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed by a supplier as part of a service agreement with a customer, should the traditional position that the customer should own all developed IP always be the position agreed upon by the parties?

When a contracting party decides that the counterparty is worth an exclusive commitment, such a decision often rests on some minimum expectations and basic assumptions. But, in light of Murphy’s law, it may be worthwhile to put the proposed union through a stress test.

Partner Andrew Gray will be a featured panelist at the upcoming Licensing Executives Society event titled AI and the Law: What You Need to Know Today. In this discussion, Andrew and fellow panelists will explore how artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform intellectual property law, licensing, and strategy.

Please join us for the next installment of our Startup & Accelerate webinar series, focusing on key artificial intelligence considerations for emerging companies. In this webinar, partner Michael S. Ryan and of counsel Brian P. Slough will explore important legal and technology issues and questions that startups and emerging companies should consider with respect to the development, licensing, and use of AI technologies.

An indemnification provision serves as a contractual remedy to redress a party’s (or third party’s) financial loss suffered as a result of a claim, breach, or some other event or condition set forth in the provision. Indemnification serves as a risk allocation mechanism derived originally from insurance law. Each term—“indemnify,” “defend,” and “hold harmless”—has a distinct and important role in an indemnity clause, so it is important to understand the nuances and differences among the three terms.

In our prior post in this two-part series on less commonly discussed technology commercialization options, we addressed how open-source software (OSS) providers may make money on their products. In this Part 2, we’ll look at another technology commercialization strategy, white labeling.