The Gift that Keeps on Giving: FAR Council Attempts to Reduce Burden of Representation Requirement for Covered Telecommunication Offerings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.16.19
Following an August 2019 interim rule that implemented a ban on government procurement of any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services (CTES) from certain Chinese companies including Huawei and ZTE, effective December 13, 2019, the FAR Council issued a second interim rule authorizing companies to annually represent whether they provide CTES to the Government in the System for Award Management (SAM) registration. This new provision at FAR 52.204-26 would allow offerors to avoid the offer-by-offer representation requirement in FAR 52.204-24 (currently required under the first interim rule).
FAR 52.204-26 applies to all acquisitions, including simplified and commercial item acquisitions, and requires companies to review SAM and validate whether any products or services originate from CTES prior to completing their required representations. To facilitate compliance, the Government will update SAM to list the Chinese companies that provide CTES and annotate where prohibitions are limited to select products and services instead of the entire company.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
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
