Déjà Vu: Another FAR Rule On Contractor Codes Of Business Ethics And Conduct
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.26.07
The Federal Register of November 23 published a final rule (http://www.crowell.com/PDF/FAR-Rule-On-Contractor-Codes_Federal-Register_11-23-07.pdf), effective December 24, which adds new features to the FAR mandating specified contractor standards of conduct (except for commercial item contracts and contracts to be performed entirely outside the United States), for new contracts expected to exceed $5 million (base plus option year value) and performance of 120 days or more (including flow down to subcontractors of the same value and performance duration). The mandated standards of conduct include (i) having a written code of business ethics and conduct; (ii) providing a copy of the code to all employees performing the contract; (iii) promoting compliance with the code; and (iv) except for small businesses, establishing an ongoing business ethics and conduct awareness program and an internal control system which facilitates timely discovery of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts and ensures prompt corrective actions (such program to include periodic reviews of company business practices, a "hotline," internal and/or external audits, and discipline for improper conduct).
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
