International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 6
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.30.06
Inside this issue:
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- INTERNATIONAL LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- U.S. Sex Harassment and Retaliation Law: Toyota has been hit with a lawsuit seeking $190 million in damages arising out of a claim of sex harassment filed against the company and its former top U.S. executive
- EU Employee's Rights: Companies Engaging in Mergers and Acquisitions in Europe Must Pay Close Attention to Employees' Rights
- ANTI-DUMPING: The Court of International Trade (CIT) confirms U.S. antidumping application of the revised reseller rule
- CHINA: Exporters Criticize Draft China Export Limits
- MARKET ACCESS: United States and Vietnam Reach Bilateral Agreement on WTO Accession Opening Up Vietnam 's Market to U.S. Goods and Services
- EXPORT CONTROLS: New computer control parameter
- EMBARGOS: Oil Concerns Prompt Effort To Relax Cuban Embargo
- PENALTIES: BIS and OFAC Penalties Increase
- EXPORT CONTROLS: Deemed Export Policy Review
- ONLINE ADVERTISING: Operating Through the Borderless Internet Still Requires Compliance with Domestic Laws: Online Advertising—Guidance on Disclosures
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation


