CPSC Streamlined Rule on Certification
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.08
On November 11, 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") issued an immediately-effective final rule (16 CFR pt. 1110) streamlining certification requirements under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ("CPSIA") for foreign manufacturers and private labelers. [Click the link above to download a PDF of the final rule]
For imported products, the final rule designates the importer as "the sole entity that must issue the certificate required." The certificate must be available upon request when the product or shipment is available for inspection in the United States.
For domestically produced products, the final rule designates the domestic manufacturer as the sole entity required to issue the certificate. The certificate must be available upon request before the product or shipment is introduced into domestic commerce.
The final rule establishes that the required certificates may be available in electronic form for purposes of "accompanying" a shipment and being "furnished" to distributors and retailers. An acceptable electronic form is a unique identifier for the electronic version of the certificate accessible by a World Wide Web URL or other electronic means.
The CPSC cited the "extremely short deadline" for compliance with the certification requirement, the "vast expansion" of products covered by the requirement, and the confusion over the requirement as its justifications for streamlining the rule, "at least in its initial phase." The certification requirements established by the CPSIA go into effect for products manufactured on or after November 12, 2008.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
