Technology: Navigating the export control maze
As a U.S. business grows into a global enterprise, it must pay attention to export regulations impacting the shipment (or transmission) of items and technology outside the U.S.
January 11, 2013 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As a U.S. business grows into a global enterprise, it must pay attention to export regulations impacting the shipment (or transmission) of items and technology outside the U.S. Unfortunately, export control regulations are incredible complex. Below are a few hypothetical situations that provide a sense of the breadth and complexity of these regulations:
- Mundus Corp. (MC) is an expanding global business with primary operations in the U.S. In connection with the opening of MC's new Russian office, it has engaged Natar Ltd. (NL), an Asia-based technology outsourcing firm. NL will enhance an MC-developed information security software application, MC Lock, used to assist with customer database security. MC intends to electronically transmit MC Lock source code (the computer language programmers use) to one of NL's Asian offices. NL will use such code to enhance MC Lock.
- NL plans to send some of its Asia-based employees to MC's U.S. offices. While there, these NL employees will access MC's technology, including the source code to MC Secure.
- MC's CIO is planning a trip to Russia to visit MC's new office. The chief information officer will bring a company-issued laptop with her. Her laptop's hard drive will be encrypted (using standard “off-the-shelf” software).
Export control laws
The MC legal and compliance team will need to spend some time analyzing each of the scenarios above to make sure that MC remains in compliance with export (and import) control laws.
Some examples of these U.S. export regulations include:
- The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The EAR addresses the export of “dual use” items (i.e., items that have both commercial and military uses).
- The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) administered by the State Department. ITAR deals with the export of military and space-related technology.
- The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) regime managed by the Treasury Department. OFAC restricts exporting items to certain countries (e.g., Iran, Cuba and the Sudan) and persons or entities (e.g., Hamas) subject to embargoes and trade sanctions.
The EAR
The EAR is the regulatory framework most applicable to our hypotheticals. The EAR controls the “shipment or transmission” of EAR-covered items outside of the U.S. It controls exports based on factors such the nature of the exported item, its destination, the end user and the purpose for which the exported item will be used.
In order to lawfully export an item subject to the EAR, the exporter must obtain a license from BIS or there must be an available license exception or exemption.
Analyzing hypothetical 1: Exporting software
An electronic transfer of source code to NL's foreign office will be an export under the EAR. MC will have to undertake a somewhat complicated analysis to determine whether there is an EAR export classification control number (ECCN) applicable to MC Lock, and if so, whether there are any restrictions on exporting items associated with that ECCN to the Asian country in which NL's office is located.
If MC is lucky, there will be no restrictions to exporting the MC Lock software to NL's Asian office (or to NL). Even if there are restrictions associated with MC's intended export, it is quite possible that there are available exemptions to the EAR license requirement.
Analyzing hypothetical 2: Deemed exports
It is tempting (but wrong) to think that the EAR will not apply to the second hypothetical. The EAR governs not only actual exports but also “deemed” exports. Under the EAR, a deemed export occurs when there is a release of covered technology (including source code) to a foreigner. That release is considered an export to the foreign national's home country. MC must determine whether there is an EAR license required to transmit the exposed technology to the home countries of the NL employees.
Analyzing hypothetical 3: Short trips to foreign countries
If MC's CIO takes her company-issued laptop to Russia, that act will constitute an export subject to the EAR. The good news is that the EAR does provide a limited license exemption that will allow her to bring the laptop with her so long as the trip is for less than a year, she keeps the device in her control and the software (including the encryption software) is, for the most part, standard commercially available software. Of course, certain countries—such as Russia—may still require users to obtain a license if they import encryption related software on their laptop.
Conclusion
Export laws are complex. If a company is engaged in the business of exporting equipment, technology or other items (or if it grants foreign workers access to controlled items in the U.S.), it should develop a compliance program to ensure that it is undertaking such exports in conformity with export control regulations.
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
© 2025 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Don’t Blow It: 10 Lessons From 10 Years of Nonprofit Whistleblower Policies
- 2AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
- 3Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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