Extraterritoriality — RICO Report Podcast
EU, UK and US Trade Sanctions: Application and Latest Developments [Video Recording]
What to Expect from the Supreme Court During Obama’s Second Term
On February 5, 2025, the new Attorney General announced the disbanding of Task Force KleptoCapture, which was launched in March 2022 to enforce the sweeping portfolio of sanctions against Russia. KleptoCapture was part of an...more
On December 1, 2024, two key components of China’s export control regime took effect: the “Regulations on Export Control of Dual-Use Items” (“DIR”) and the “Export Control List of Dual-Use Items” (the “Dual-Use Items List”)....more
The EU is going extraterritorial, and it is doing so through private contract. It is a pretty neat trick. As a general rule, EU regulations do not apply extraterritorially. This policy is a bit pointed, intended to stand...more
As federal regulators have recently made clear, steamship lines, non-vessel-operating common carriers, indirect air carriers, freight forwarders, and others involved in the global movement of cargo must ensure that their...more
On January 9, 2021, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued Order No. 1/2021 on the Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Applications of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (the "Rules").1 The Rules,...more
The Development: China's Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") released Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-Territorial Application of Foreign Laws and Other Measures ("Rules") on January 9, 2021. Effective immediately, the...more
On June 28, 2010, the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress (NPC) reviewed the second draft of China's Export Control Law (the "Law"). Six months had passed since the Law was first reviewed by the NPC in...more
This issue of Skadden’s semiannual Cross-Border Investigations Update takes a close look at recent cases, regulatory activity and other key developments, including a review of the first year of GDPR enforcement, analysis of...more
This issue of Skadden’s semiannual Cross-Border Investigations Update takes a close look at recent cases, regulatory activity and other key developments, including DOJ guidance on the use of corporate monitors in criminal...more
Dutch Parent Exercises Insufficient Control over US Subsidiary to be Deemed its "Alter Ego" - Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna International B.V., US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 26, 2018....more
The Supreme Court recently answered the question whether a patent owner can collect damages caused by an infringer’s sales outside the U.S. Federal law typically reaches only conduct within the country, but the justices made...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more
Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more
On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)....more
On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more
Case at a Glance: The Court will consider whether the text of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) imposes liability on those supplying from the United States components of a patented invention “in such a manner as to actively induce the...more
An introduction to § 271 - Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement. The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), §...more
An open question coming into 2017 was whether the aggressive enforcement posture that had characterized the Obama and Bush administrations would continue under the Trump administration. Any questions were answered with the...more
As the economy continues to globalize, so too does the reach of antitrust law. Two recent cases illustrate the interaction between international trade and U.S. antitrust law: Biocad v. F. Hoffman-La-Roche Ltd. and In re...more
• On October 27, 2017, the U.S. State Department issued guidance identifying 39 entities related to the defense and intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation and issued related guidance on criteria to...more
In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more
On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held that there is no patent infringement when an entity supplies "a single component" from the United States for combination into "a multicomponent invention" outside the United...more
On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). See...more
Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act provides that a party infringes a patent claim when it "supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention...more