Pay-to-Play 2: CFIUS Filing Fees Go Into Effect May 1, 2020
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.28.20
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) has announced an Interim Final Rule requiring payment of filing fees in connection with any Joint Voluntary Notices submitted on or after May 1, 2020 for “covered transactions” under 31 C.F.R. Part 800 or for “covered real estate transactions” under Part 802. The Interim Final Rule adopts, without change, the sliding scale fee structure as initially proposed, but in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, will continue to accept comments until June 1, 2020.
The fee schedule is:
Total Transaction Value |
Filing Fee |
|
< $500,000 |
$0 |
|
> $500,000 but < $5 million |
$750 |
|
> $5 million but < $50 million |
$7,500 |
|
> $50 million but < $250 million |
$75,000 |
|
> $250 million but < $750 million |
$150,000 |
|
> $ 750 million |
$300,000 |
CFIUS rejected comments seeking to limit the transaction value to just the value of the U.S. business and denied concerns that the lack of any fee for submission of mandatory or voluntary declarations would provide a financial or administrative incentive for CFIUS to fail to conclude action under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act in evaluating such declarations.
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
