Accurate Historical Data Yields Negligent Estimate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.17
In Agility Def. & Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. United States (Feb. 6, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the government’s volume estimate in a requirements-contract solicitation cannot rely solely on historical workloads when the government expects conditions to change going forward. FAR 16.503 requires solicitations for requirements contracts to include a “realistic estimate of total quantity” based on “the most current information available.” Reversing a decision from the Court of Federal Claims, the CAFC revived the contractor’s negligent-estimate claim, holding that the government failed to comply with FAR 16.503 when its estimate relied on historical data rather than the agency’s actual expectation that changing conditions would create a surge in requirements above and beyond the historical workloads.
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).
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
