1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Under the Wire: FAR Council Announces Interim Rule to Implement NDAA Procurement Ban on Huawei and Other Chinese Telecommunications Equipment

Under the Wire: FAR Council Announces Interim Rule to Implement NDAA Procurement Ban on Huawei and Other Chinese Telecommunications Equipment

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.13.19

On August 13, 2019, the FAR Council published in the Federal Register an interim rule, FAR Subpart 4.21, effective immediately, which implements a portion of section 889 of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, specifically, the ban on government procurement of any equipment, system or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services from certain Chinese companies. The interim rule defines covered telecommunications equipment and services to include any telecommunications equipment or services from Huawei or ZTE (or any affiliate) and certain video surveillance and telecommunications equipment or services from three other Chinese companies (or their affiliates). The interim rule also provides for expanding the ban to other companies that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, reasonably believes to be owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the Chinese government. Unless a waiver is granted, the rule will broadly apply to all contracts including commercial item procurements and acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold. The implementing clauses, FAR 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment and FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment,must also be added to any existing contracts before those may be extended or renewed.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....