1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A New Dawn or New Nightmare: Will Transactional Data Reporting Reduce, or Merely Shift, GSA Schedule Contractors' Compliance Burden?

A New Dawn or New Nightmare: Will Transactional Data Reporting Reduce, or Merely Shift, GSA Schedule Contractors' Compliance Burden?

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.23.16

Despite competing concerns expressed by both contractors and the IG, on June 23, 2016, GSA published a final rule proceeding with a pilot program imposing substantial monthly transactional data reporting obligations on contractors but relieving them from the burden of both commercial sales practices data submissions and the monitoring of commercial sales to tracking customers, as well as from the threat of price readjustments and possible FCA liability under the Price Reduction clause. The pilot program will initially apply to new contracts (and existing contracts where contractors elect to participate) under select GSA Schedules accounting for approximately 43 percent of GSA Schedule purchases, including Schedule 70 (Information Technology) and 00CORP (Professional Services), and continue for at least one year as GSA evaluates its ability effectively to collect and use transactional data and price analysis to assure better pricing for GSA Schedule customers.

Contacts

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)....

View All Insights