Regulatory: Doing business overseas— the accidental exporter
Did you know that giving a Chinese national a tour of a biotech laboratory in the U.S. may be viewed by the U.S. government as the equivalent to exporting biotechnology to China?
October 24, 2012 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Did you know that giving a Chinese national a tour of a biotech laboratory in the U.S. may be viewed by the U.S. government as the equivalent to exporting biotechnology to China? If this comes as a surprise to you, count yourself in the majority of people who are generally unaware of the “deemed export” rule. Pursuant to the rule, the disclosure of controlled technology to a foreign national in the U.S. without appropriate export licenses can lead to large fines and criminal liability—even if no products are ever shipped out of the country.
Want to learn more? Here are five points to keep in mind regarding deemed exports:
- The deemed export rule may be counterintuitive.
Even to experienced practitioners, the deemed export rule requires careful analysis when deciding how it applies to a particular individual or technology. Accordingly, you should refrain from relying on a common sense understanding of how the rule applies in a given situation. The release of technology to a foreign national should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The first step in analyzing the application of the rule is to determine the status of the person to whom the technology will be disclosed. The rule does not apply to U.S. citizens, green card holders, refugees or other protected individuals. Issues of nationality and residence can quickly complicate the analysis. For instance, consider a factory tour given to a businessperson visiting from Germany. If the individual is a resident of Germany, but a citizen of Iran, or perhaps holds dual German and Iranian citizenship, the application of the rule is less straightforward.
The second step is to determine whether a license is required to export the technology directly to the foreign national's home country. If so, a license may be required before disclosing the technology to the person here in the U.S. The application of the export licensing rules can be complex and sometimes unexpected, as both the product and the destination country must be considered. A widget may require a license if sent to one country, but not if sent to another country.
- Intangibles—such as technology and source code—are subject to restrictions under U.S. export law and need not leave the country for an export to occur.
Exporting technology in the form of information or data can be just as problematic as exporting widgets. Under U.S. export law, technology is broadly defined, and includes information necessary for the development, production or use of a product. If you know or intend that a technology will be transmitted abroad, releasing that technology could be considered an export. The disclosure of technology abroad may catch a company, whose employees travel for business, off guard. Business people and researchers often do not consider that taking a laptop on a business trip could be considered an export of items on that laptop to their destination country.
That said, nothing has to leave the U.S. for an export to occur. The deemed export rule states that a release of technology or source code to a foreign national in the U.S is an export to that individual's home country. Technology is considered released for export as soon as the foreign national has seen or heard the information.
- Your employees may be subject to the deemed export rule.
A company may need an export license to provide information to its employees in the United States. To the surprise of many businesses, even foreign nationals who are legally in the United States (often under long-term professional visas) may be subject to the deemed export rule.
While a license will not be required for most foreign nationals if they do not have access to controlled technology or source code, employers should review the job duties of their employees to make sure a license is not required. In fact, since February 2011, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-129 requires companies petitioning for certain nonimmigrant visas for foreign workers to certify that they have—or do not need—an export license for their technologies.
- Fines and penalties for unapproved deemed exports can be harsh, and government enforcement is on the rise.
Deemed export violations are no small matter. Although this has not always been the case, the U.S. government has aggressively enforced violations in recent years. The potential penalties for a deemed export violation are severe.
Consider J. Reece Roth, an electrical engineering professor from Tennessee who worked as a consultant on a military research project. Roth shared technological information about the project with graduate students in Tennessee who happened to be Chinese and Iranian nationals. Roth also brought his laptop—containing information about the project—with him to China when he traveled there to lecture about his work. These facts were the basis for felony convictions and a prison sentence upheld last year by a federal appellate court.
- Education and internal controls can help your company successfully navigate the deemed export rule.
Despite its complexities, companies can avoid the pitfalls of the deemed export rule by educating their employees about the application of the rule and implementing (or strengthening) internal controls. For example, when visitors come to the company, how does the company control what they see and hear? What measures exist to limit access to technical data by the company's employees? Through relatively straightforward procedures, a company can successfully navigate the deemed export rule.
Andrew Turner, a former Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. attorney, also contributed to this article.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250