International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 4
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.01.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Intellectual Property: The U.S. and Japan recently announced a joint initiative to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and other third countries
- Market Access: The World Trade Organization completed its first Trade Policy Review report of China which concludes that, although China has achieved success in its trade and investment reforms, it still faces challenges
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Customs: The recent EU WTO "victory" over the U.S. on customs practices in Europe may seem like a blow to businesses facing customs clearance problems in the EU
- Counterfeit: The EU is to introduce harmonized criminal sanctions and heavy fines for infringements of intellectual property rights throughout the EU
- BILATERAL TRADE: Cross Lander's Investment in Romanian Auto Company Hits Rocky Terrain
- INVESTMENT: Representative Edward Markey, member of the House Homeland Security Committee, announces his intention to introduce an amendment to the Safe Ports Bill requiring inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. seaports
- TRADE REMEDIES: Is Zeroing Finally Dead?
- EXPORT CONTROLS: Recent Cancelled Sale of U.S. Computer Technology to China Highlights Concern over New Planned “Catch-All” Export Rule
- TRADE RETALIATION: The EU imposes punitive duties on eight additional U.S. products as retaliation against the U.S. Byrd law
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
