Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

As part of our Spotlight series, we welcome Marie Davy, who recently joined Morgan Lewis as a partner in our Paris office, to discuss key issues to consider when negotiating global distribution agreements.

Interest in offshore business centers, commonly known as global capability centers (GCCs), continues to rise as US companies across industries look to establish overseas offices and hire skilled workers to support critical business functions and technology services.

Whether form or template agreements are for a company’s own services or are used for the procurement of goods and services, leveraging forms can be a useful tool to maintain consistent terms and conditions. With the advancement and growth within the artificial intelligence (AI) market, including new and enhanced products and services that incorporate AI, now is a good time to revisit and refresh template agreements.

In today’s rapidly evolving marketplace, innovation is not just a competitive edge but rather an expectation. Customers increasingly rely on their vendors to provide cutting-edge technology and stay ahead of industry trends. As such, a critical question arises: Should customers require service providers to agree to a contractual obligation to continually evolve and innovate their service offerings?

In many standard service agreements, providers will typically be required to deliver their services in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and practices and with professionalism and a level of skill appropriate to the agreement’s demands. While this standard often serves as a benchmark, it is rarely spelled out in detail. To reduce ambiguity, some agreements may go a step further, introducing a defined term to capture the expected service quality.

UK financial regulators recently published their supervisory expectations for critical third party service providers (CTPs) to the financial sector under the United Kingdom’s new regime extending regulatory oversight to CTPs. The final rules align with key themes of other regulatory regimes seeking to reinforce operational resilience (e.g., the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)) around risk management, supply chain management, and incident management, among other areas.

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?

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on October 31, 2024 published observations and key lessons from how firms responded to the CrowdStrike IT outage. The outage caused disruption across several industries globally, and the FCA highlights for UK financial services the importance of ensuring operational resilience in order to minimize the potential impact of future events on consumers and markets.

One of the commonly advertised features of AI is that it is beneficial for automation and increasing productivity. When a company considers improving its productivity and employing an AI tool, it will typically go through a contracting process with the service provider and assess the terms of use and associated risks for the business. But what happens if an employee presses on and starts using an AI tool that was not vetted by the company?