Administration Seeks Delay in Extending Government Procurement Ban on Certain Chinese Telecommunications Equipment to Federal Contractors and Grant Recipients
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.19
Section 889 of the NDAA for FY 2019 prohibits executive agencies from (1) procuring certain technologies from Huawei and other identified Chinese technology companies; (2) doing business with contractors that use those companies’ products as a substantial component of their systems; and (3) using grant and loan funds to procure technology from those same sources. By letter dated June 4, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Acting Director submitted proposed legislation to Congress to delay the bans described at (2) and (3) above, to modify the ban in (3) to apply to any federal grant or loan recipient’s use of the specified Chinese technology, and to specify an extended rulemaking process – including public meetings – to solicit input and potential mitigation solutions from affected parties. The first such public meeting has been scheduled for July 19, 2019. In a written explanation accompanying the proposed legislation, OMB acknowledges the practical challenges posed by the current schedule and the potential risk of a “dramatic reduction in the available industrial base,” either due to the cost of the regulatory burdens or because entities will decide that the commercial relationships are more valuable than complying with the Government’s ban applicable to government contractors. In the interim, Huawei has sought expedited handling of its lawsuit (Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v, United States, E.D.Tx 4:19-cv-0159) challenging this targeted procurement ban.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25


