International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 13
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.06.06
Inside this issue:
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- GMOs: The EU – U.S. controversy over the spread of unauthorized genetically modified rice fuels the already infected cross-Atlantic GMO debate
- EU Anti-Dumping: European Commission publicly acknowledges that it has started a comprehensive review of the way that the EU will apply anti-dumping measures in the future
- CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION: After Doha: Practical Approaches for Cutting the Costs of Trade
- C-TPAT: C-TPAT Develops New Minimum Security Criteria for Foreign Manufacturers effective August 29, 2006
- CHINA: Bureau of Industry and Security Holds Regional Meetings with the Public to Explain New Proposed Export Control Rules for China
- MARKET ACCESS: With the collapse of the World Trade Organization's Doha Round and no clear timeline for its resurrection, member countries are expected to focus renewed attention on bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs)
- SANCTIONS: The U.S. considers sanctions options on Iran
- PRIVACY: Commission Announces New Initiatives on EU-U.S. Passenger Data Transfer: More of the Same or Expanded Access to Such Data?
- IRAN: Focus on Iran – Singapore Airlines Joint Venture Sanctioned by OFAC
- JAPAN: Japanese Executives Arrested for Violation of Japan's Export Control Laws
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
