International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 1
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.20.06
Inside this issue:
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- DUTY RECOVERY : Many importers and manufacturers pay unnecessary duty on imported merchandise, either directly or as a cost of procured materials
- BILATERAL TRADE: The proposed U.S. – Korea FTA will be the most commercially significant FTA the U.S. has negotiated since NAFTA
- FOREIGN INVESTMENTS: New Indian investment rules allow foreign retailers to set up majority-owned stores in India – a high-growth market eyed by foreign retailers for years
- AIR TRANSPORT: Controversial U.S. DOT proposal to attract investment in the U.S. Airlines draws fire from both sides of the pond rather than hope for Open Skies
- SANCTIONS: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued an interim final rule outlining a new set of enforcement procedures
- NAFTA: NAFTA provisions on “regional value content” (RVC) calculation causes serious problems for related parties
- DUTY SUSPENSION: The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) may be more relevant to your business than it sounds - at least if you are an importer of products that American factories do not produce domestically
- INTERNATIONAL IP PROTECTION: Elements of India’s new patent law which took effect in 2005 have prevented Novartis from obtaining a patent for its cancer drug “Gleevec”
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
