U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Renegotiation Deadline Passes: What Now?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.16
Despite intensive last-minute talks over the weekend, U.S. and European Union (EU) negotiators have yet to reach a new agreement for the legitimization of data transfers from Europe to the United States to replace the invalidated U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework (Safe Harbor). On February 1, EU Commissioner Věra Jourová provided a status update at a plenary meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in Brussels. Jourová told the Parliament committee, "I believe the close relationship between the United States and European Union deserves these special efforts. We are close but an additional effort is needed." Negotiators on both sides still hope to find an agreement this week.
In the meantime, the EU Member States' Data Protection authorities (Article 29 Working Party) will meet on February 2 to discuss how to proceed. The meeting will include discussions about investigations and possible suspensions of data transfers which continue based solely on the former Safe Harbor. The authorities will also assess other transfer mechanisms such as EU Standard Contractual Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules, which also have been criticized based on the same concerns relating to U.S. government surveillance.
We will provide additional guidance as it becomes available.
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
