International Trade Bulletin - Volume 1, Issue 9
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.10.06
Inside this issue:
- EUROPE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- EU Anti-Dumping: The Latest Series of Anti-Dumping Measures Proposed by the EU Clearly Show the Fingerprints of a More Liberalized Policy
- Market Access: The European Commission Formally Kicked Off Its Strategic Review of EU-China Trade Relations on 7th July With a High-Profile Conference in Brussels
- CHINA IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- U.S. EXPORT CONTROLS: US-India Agreement May Give U.S.-India Tech Transfers A Yellow Light
- U.S. SANCTIONS: State Department Shifts Policies Toward Venezuela and Libya on Trade Sanctions
- TECHNOLOGY: New U.S. Legislation Could Impose Significant Penalties Against U.S. Companies that Provide Information to Internet-Restricting Countries Such as China
- CUSTOMS: Potential Backlog in U.S. Validations Causes Concern for C-TPAT Members
- TRANSPORTATION: Supporters of U.S. Department of Transport's (“DOT”) Foreign Control Proposal Seek Changes to Expand Foreign Control While Opponents Argue the Rule Already Permits Too Much Foreign Control
- ANTI-BOYCOTT OAC Issues Proposed Anti-Boycott Penalty Guidelines
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
