Plugging the "Gaps" on Transfers of U.S. Sensitive Emerging Technology: New and Permanent Dual-Use Export Control Statutory Authority Becomes Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.16.18
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018, included within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, became law on August 13, 2018, and provides “modern” and permanent statutory authority for the U.S. Export Administration regulations (EAR), which control the export, re-export, and transfer of U.S. origin “dual-use” items. As a result of the effort to strengthen control over foreign investment in the United States (contained in a companion statute within the NDAA), the law directs the Commerce Department to establish an inter-agency process, subject to a public notice and comment period, for the identification of “emerging and foundational technologies” that are essential to the national security of the United States, and requires the imposition of licensing requirements (even if unilateral) at least for transfers of such technologies to U.S. arms embargoed countries, which includes China. With respect to potential technologies likely to incur heightened scrutiny, a Commerce Department industry event in May of this year highlighted U.S. advancements vis-a-vis Europe and China in the areas of artificial intelligence (particularly autonomy, and human-AI interaction), 5G technology, and robotics, among others.
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
