New US DOJ Corporate Enforcement Policy

The U.S. Department of Justice has released a Corporate Enforcement Policy concerning national security which allows U.S. corporations to voluntarily disclose violating white collar crime rules, including importantly, export control laws, and avoid prosecution (except in limited circumstances).  The Press Release states:

The mission of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD) is to protect and defend the United States against the full range of national security threats, consistent with the rule of law. Business organizations and their employees are at the forefront of protecting the national security of the United States by preventing the unlawful export of sensitive commodities, technologies, and services, as well as unlawful transactions with sanctioned countries and designated individuals and entities. Enforcing our export control and sanctions laws, and holding accountable those who violate them, is a top priority for NSD.

On March 10, 2026, the Department released its first-ever Department-wide corporate enforcement policy (CEP) for criminal matters, promoting uniformity, predictability, and fairness in how it pursues white-collar cases to protect the American people.

As the announcement explains, the “Department-wide CEP provides concrete benefits to incentivize companies to voluntarily disclose discovered misconduct, cooperate with our investigations, and timely and appropriately remediate the wrongdoing. For companies that do, absent certain limited aggravating circumstances, the Department will decline to prosecute the company. Incentivizing corporate self-disclosures — while still permitting prosecutions in appropriate circumstances — allows the Department to quickly pursue culpable individuals, secure justice for victims, and deter white-collar crime, all while not unduly burdening American businesses.”

Under the CEP, “disclosure must be made to the appropriate component of the Department,” CEP n.5, and all resolutions under the CEP “must be approved by the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for the relevant Division.” CEP Background ¶ 4. The CEP also provides that a “[g]ood faith disclosure to one component where the matter is later brought to another appropriate component for investigation will also qualify” for declination. CEP n.5

As pertaining to national security laws, the Justice Manual (JM) assigns the “enforcement of all criminal laws affecting, involving or relating to the national security, and the responsibility for prosecuting criminal offenses, such as conspiracy, perjury and false statements, arising out of offenses related to national security . . . to the AAG of NSD.” JM § 9-90.010.

The scope of these matters, which includes violations of the U.S. government’s primary export control and sanctions regimes — the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2778, the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. § 4801 et seq., and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. – can be found at JM § 9-90.020.

While the conduct of business organizations and their employees has the greatest potential to implicate U.S. national security interests in the enforcement of export control and sanctions laws, the conduct of business organizations and their employees can also violate other U.S. national security laws, including laws prohibiting material support to and financing of foreign terrorist organizations, criminal violations in connection with the work of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Team Telecom). Companies are encouraged to voluntarily self-disclose to NSD any potential criminal violations of U.S. law relating to matters conducted, handled, or supervised by the NSD AAG.

All voluntary self-disclosures concerning potential criminal violations of U.S. national security laws should be sent, with the company name in the subject line, to NSD’s email inbox for voluntary self‑disclosures: NSD.VSD@usdoj.gov.

EPO Releases Annual Report on 2017 Patent Activity: Interesting Stats

The EPO has released its annual report for 2017 patenting activity.  Notably, patenting and patent filings are trending up at 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.  In the electrical engineering field, patenting is up in the audio visual space by 10.6% and semiconductors by 13.5%.  In instruments, patenting is up in optics by 15.6% and analysis of biological materials by 12.5%.  In chemistry, biotechnology is up 14.5%, but micro-structural and nanotechnology is down by 12.6%.  Interestingly, US nationals as first inventor lead patent applications in the EPO with a 26% share.  The EU member state inventors as a whole have more nationals as first inventor (47% total).  However, Germany, the leader in the EU, has a 15% share.  Japan has 13%, and China has 5%.  The top three technical fields in patent applications are 1) medical technology; 2) digital communication; and 3) computer technology.  The top ten applicant companies are: 1) Huawei (China); 2) Siemens (EU); 3) LG (Korea); 4) Samsung (Korea); 5) Qualcomm (US); 6) Royal Phillips (EU); 7) United Technologies (US); 8) Intel (US); 9) Robert Bosch (EU); and 10) Ericsson (EU).  Sixty-nine percent of the total applicants are large entities.  Twenty-four percent are SMEs/individual inventors.  Seven percent were universities/public research.  Interestingly, SMEs/individual inventors share is down from 28% in 2016.  Universities/public research is up 1 percentage point from 2016. 

US Supreme Court ruling on exhaustion worries lots of people

An article, "US Supreme Court decision on patent exhaustion worries TTOs", appears in the August issue of the subscription-only journal Technology Transfer Tactics. It discusses the US Supreme Court decision on patent exhaustion in June in Quanta Computers, Inc. v LG Electronics, Inc. The court ruled, in essence, that the application of the doctrine of patent exhaustion meant that LG could not control the downstream use of technology that it had licensed to Intel. That technology was used in Intel chips that were later sold to Quanta and other computer manufacturers. The decision means that LG cannot seek royalty payments from Quanta or other computer makers that purchased components produced by Intel under its licensing agreement with LG. Experts agree that this decision, while not in fact earth-shattering, underscores the need for strategic thinking when formulating licensing strategy and deciding how to implement it.