Base And Option Years Unit Pricing Not Releasable Under FOIA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.29.06
In Canadian Commercial Corp. v. Dept. of Air Force, Judge Bates, despite rejecting the contractor's argument that the disclosure of the base and option year prices would likely cause substantial competitive harm in future procurements, reversed the Air Force's decisions to release that data from its contract for the maintenance and repair of J85 turbojet engines. The court found that the pricing information was involuntarily submitted but that substantial competitive harm would result from the release of all but the labor rates for the over and above work, based solely on the conclusion that the release would harm the contractor by providing its competitors information that they could use to convince the Air Force not to exercise the contract options.
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
