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 | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25


