Identifying and Defining "Emerging Technologies" Subject to Control for Export and Foreign Investment
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.19.18
On November 19, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on implementation of Section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. This section requires Commerce, in consultation with DoD and other CFIUS member agencies, to define “emerging technologies” sufficiently significant to U.S. national security interests to impose some level of export controls over the technology and potentially to trigger mandatory declarations of any foreign investment in companies involved in the development and production of such technology. This ANPRM identifies certain broad categories of emerging technologies (largely consistent with technologies identified in the 2018 DIUx China Report) and seeks recommendations on defining specific technologies within these categories or others to control considering such factors as on the status of the technology development in the U.S. and other countries and the potential impact – pro or con – of such controls on U.S. technological superiority. Comments are due by December 19, 2018; BIS will issue a separate ANPRM for “foundational technologies.”
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
