New Standard Clauses For Data Transfers To Data Controllers In Non-EU Countries
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.24.05
The Data Protection Directive permits the transfer of personal data outside of the EU in certain circumstances, including where a data exporter (based in the EU) and a data importer (based elsewhere) enter into a written agreement guaranteeing that the data importer will adequately protect all personal data received from the data exporter.
In 2001 the European Commission approved standard contract clauses for use in such a situation. However, the clauses were widely regarded as being too onerous on data exporters. In response to a demand from businesses, the European Commission adopted new alternative standard contract clauses in December 2004 for use in contracts between data controllers.
The key differences between the 2001 and 2004 standard contract clauses relate to the liability of the data exporter for the activities of the data importer: The new standard clauses now impose liability for damage suffered by a data subject directly on the data importer, and the data exporter is now only liable where it has failed to use reasonable efforts to determine that the data importer is able to satisfy its legal obligations under the standard contract clauses.
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
