CFC Dismisses Adverse Past Performance Challenge
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.29.10
In Kemron Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (May 27, 2010), the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the contractor's complaint that the government issued an unfair, inaccurate, and unreasonable evaluation of its performance, finding that the contractor had failed to meet a jurisdictional prerequisite required by the Contract Disputes Act: that it file a "claim" with the contracting officer. Though the contractor engaged in a series of written and electronic communications with various individuals at the agency expressing its disagreement with its past performance evaluation, the Court concluded that none of the communications constituted (1) "a written demand seeking . . . other contract relief[] . . . as a matter of right" (2) "submitted to the contracting officer for a decision."
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
