International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 2
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.03.06
Inside this issue:
- CALIFORNIA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Wine Industry: The United States and the European Union have signed a bilateral wine trade agreement that will facilitate trade but also increase competition in the two wine markets
- Bilateral Trade: On March 8, the Bush Administration announced its latest plan to help U.S. exporters and importers do business in the Asia-Pacific market – a proposed U.S. – Malaysia Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Chemicals: New EU rules on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) will greatly affect the business reality for a large number of chemical companies as well as downstream users doing business in Europe and elsewhere
- Market Access: The EU and the U.S. are each other’s main trading partners, accounting for the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world
- EU TRADE REMEDIES: European Union Introduces “Flexible” Features into Its Anti-Dumping Measures
- WTO: The US and the EU have come together to request WTO consultations with China on its tariffs on automotive parts signaling an important change in the relationship among the three trading partners
- INVESTMENT: Investors clearly have begun to realize the significance of the rights guaranteed to them under NAFTA and other investment treaties, as well as their ability to enforce them
- US TRADE REMEDIES : Two initiatives currently underway in the U.S. government may make the prospects of bringing antidumping actions less attractive to U.S. petitioners
- SANCTIONS: The U.S. extraterritorial sanctions continue to wreak havoc with sourcing for companies worldwide
- CHINA EXPORT ISSUES: China "catch all" export control delayed but not dead; major review of China export policy underway
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
