BPAs: They Ain't Contracts
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.14.14
In Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. U.S. (Feb. 6, 2014), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that a blanket purchase agreement is not typically a binding contract on which the contractor can sue. In this instance, as in many, the necessary "mutuality of obligation" was negated in both directions, with the BPA expressly saying the agency was not obligated to make an award under the BPA and that the contractor was not obligated to accept any order proffered by the agency.
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
