PODCAST: CETA, ISDS, and the Belgian Veto – A Warning of Failure for Future Trade Agreements with the EU?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.17
The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was expected to be finalized in the fall of 2016. However, final agreement was vetoed by politicians in Belgium, specifically by parties in Wallonia and Brussels, over issues related to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter.
Ian Laird and Flip Petillion, partners in Crowell & Moring’s International Dispute Resolution Group, sit down for this special Crowell & Moring podcast to discuss CETA—what happened and what it could mean for the future of EU and Canada trade, and international investment arbitration.
Ian, resident in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, is a Canadian-qualified lawyer and previously served as chief of staff to a Canadian cabinet minister, as well as a senior political aide to the Ontario Minister of Energy. Ian represents companies engaged in U.S.-Canada trade and business relations and has provided counsel on NAFTA dispute settlement issues for more than 15 years.
Flip, resident in Crowell & Moring's Brussels office, is a leading domestic and international negotiator, litigator, and arbitrator. He has been handling arbitrations for more than 25 years.
Discussed in this 27 minute podcast:
- How it's possible for individual regions within a signatory country to block the agreement.
- The objections raised against CETA and the ISDS chapter.
- What to expect next.
- Implications on future trade agreements with the EU.
Click below to listen or access from the link:
SoundCloud
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
