International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 15
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.04.06
Inside this issue:
- ANTITRUST IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Enlargement to the EU-27: The European Commission confirms that Bulgaria and Romania may enter the European Union as of 1 January 2007
- Compensation for U.S. Corporations Stemming from EU Enlargement: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) is requesting U.S. exporters of goods and services to notify them of any adverse commercial implications that may arise as a result of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Divisions at the World Intellectual Property Organization May Halt Work on Global IP Reform
- SANCTIONS: With news reports of Iran's continuing defiance of UN demands to cease enrichment activity, and with negotiations dragging on with no schedule or framework, Congress has moved to increase the pressure on Iran, approving legislation just before departing for the election recess
- FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: Japan Continues to Expand Its Free Trade Agreements (FTA) Network. Is a U.S.-Japan FTA on the Horizon?
- REGULATORY: Reversal of India's Coke and Pepsi Ban Raises Investment Questions
- MARKET ACCESS: The EU uses China's WTO Transitional Review Mechanism exercise as an opportunity to tackle barriers to trade for European industries and enterprises
- GAMBLING: U.S. legislation that has been declared inconsistent with WTO rules by the WTO Appellate Body does not prevent criminal charges being brought against private individuals promoting gambling over the Internet
- TRADE-IN SERVICES: The EU has reached an agreement with seventeen other World Trade Organization (“WTO”) members on binding EU commitments for trade in services
- CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION: Part 3: After Doha: Practical Approaches for Cutting the Costs of Trade - Classification Review Update: Importers Winning Classification Cases in the CIT
Contacts
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
