CFC Requires Strict Adherence To FAR’s Data Rights Clause
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.28.04
In what the court characterized as an issue of first impression, the Court of Federal Claims in Ervin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 20, 2004), reviewed the scope of the FAR’s “Rights In Data--General” clause (FAR 52.227-14), holding that, among other things, the contractor failed to protect its technical data with the required restrictive legends and thereby granted the government “unlimited rights” in the data. In rejecting numerous defenses raised by the contractor, the court required strict adherence to the procedural and substantive requirements of the clause, finding that the contractor’s efforts to remedy its deficiencies were “both too little and too late” – a finding that highlights the necessity for contractors to follow such requirements or risk losing valuable rights to proprietary data.
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
