Off to the Races: The FAA Initiates Informal Drone Rulemaking
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.14.19
Yesterday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) posted in the Federal Register the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The substance and implications of the draft rules were explored in previous client alerts and can be accessed here and here. Comments to both notices are due April 15, 2019.
The FAA also issued an interim final rule requiring small drone owners to display their FAA-issued registration number on the exterior of the aircraft. This is a change from the current rule, which only requires that the number be readily accessible and readable at a close distance. Under the new rule, owners will no longer have the flexibility to place the number in an enclosed compartment on the device, a practice which “presents an imminent risk of harm to first responders,” according to the rule. The rule is effective February 25, 2019, without the usual notice and comment period. This immediate implementation further underscores the Government’s concern over the unique security risks posed by small drones. Interested parties should submit comments by March 15, 2019, as the rule may be amended based on comments received.
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
