CFC Awards Full Fees for AF Breach
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.24.13
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 16, 2013), the CFC awarded SUFI, represented by Crowell & Moring, as breach damages its attorneys' fees and expenses for preparing claim packages that were later successfully litigated. Brushing aside the government's multiple challenges, the court found Crowell & Moring's fees and expenses to be reasonable and awarded them in full, plus interest as provided by agreement, but denied SUFI's request for an overhead and profit burden, finding that the client did not add "any material value" to the claim preparation efforts.
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
