International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 12
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.22.06
Inside this issue:
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EXPORT CONTROL IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- SECTION 337: Today's Trade Remedy of Choice?
- RUSSIA: Will Nonproliferation Sanctions on Russian Companies Draw Retaliation?
- ANTI-DUMPING: WTO Closes Door on U.S. Zeroing Practice
- CUSTOMS: The U.S. has announced its decision to appeal the recent WTO ruling concerning non-uniform application of the EU's customs administration
- AVIATION: U.S. and EU Renew their Commitment to Open Skies After DOT Delays Its Controversial Foreign Control Rule
- MARKET ACCESS: After Doha : Practical Approaches for Cutting the Costs of Trade
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
