Antitrust Division Update Affirms Continued Efforts of Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.20
As part of its 2020 Update, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division highlighted the ongoing work of its Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), with Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim specifically noting the work of the PCSF in his personal remarks. Calling the response to the PCSF “overwhelmingly positive”, Delrahim underscored the Division’s priority of enforcing the criminal antitrust laws and stated that the PCSF will be a primary tool for investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Update also reiterated that the interagency partnership has been hard at work in the ten months since its launch, identifying and investigating potential antitrust crimes in public procurements. The Update noted that since its inception in November, the PCSF has conducted more than 30 in-person training presentations in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and its work has continued during the pandemic with PCSF attorneys leading over a dozen interactive virtual training programs for 2,000 criminal investigators, data scientists, and procurement officials from 500 federal, state, and local agencies.
Importantly, the Update reported that DOJ has secured additional funding for the PCSF to support its outreach efforts, as well as its investigations, indicating the Antitrust Division has both the interest and the resources to remain focused on these issues for the foreseeable future.
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
