1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |PODCAST: President Trump’s Early Trade Policy Moves – What it Means for Business — C&M’s First 100 Days Series

PODCAST: President Trump’s Early Trade Policy Moves – What it Means for Business — C&M’s First 100 Days Series

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.03.17

As part of Crowell & Moring’s “First 100 Days” series, Paul Davies and Andrew Blasi of C&M International, Crowell & Moring’s international policy and regulatory affairs consulting affiliate, discuss the trade policy moves made so far by the Trump Administration, and what it means for businesses who are involved in trade issues. Paul is a director at C&M International and a former Australian trade negotiator. Andrew is an associate director at C&M International and a former staff member of the US-ASEAN Business Council and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Covered in this 16 minute podcast:

  • President Trump’s early trade policy emphasis on limiting imports and eliminating the trade deficit.
  • Implications of the U.S. withdrawal from TPP and the main takeaways for businesses.
  • The president’s upcoming meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan and where things stand.
  • Thoughts on NAFTA and what businesses might expect.

Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes

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)....

View All Insights