UPDATE: [Close of Comments on Commerce Cyber Rule]
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.20.22
On January 12, 2022 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a federal register notice delaying the effective date of new controls on cybersecurity items and an accompanying new license exception. The rules are now set to take effect on March 7, 2022.
The new controls were published in an interim final rule on October 21, 2021, please see our earlier client alert on this. Broadly speaking, they cover (a) items, including software, for the generation, command and control, or delivery of intrusion software and (b) internet protocol (IP) network communication surveillance equipment. BIS delayed the implementation to give industry additional time to comply with the new restrictions as well as update internal compliance procedures, and to provide BIS itself time to provide additional guidance on the rule. BIS may also consider some modifications to the rule, but is not reopening the comment period and these modifications based on the latest comments will most likely be made, if at all, sometime after the new effective date for the interim final rule.
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
