Agency's Stafford Act Interpretation Rejected
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.12.07
In Executive Protective Security Service, Inc. (Oct. 22, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2999543.pdf), GAO sustained the protest on the basis that FEMA had improperly interpreted the “doing business primarily” eligibility requirement of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. GAO determined that the act’s plain language and legislative history required that a firm must conduct a majority of its business in the designated disaster area to be considered for a Stafford Act award.
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
