Contracting Authority Analyzed In 3 Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.16.06
In a spate of recent decisions by different Court of Federal Claims judges, the proper scope of contracting authority is closely analyzed. In Brunner v. U.S. (May 2, 2001), Judge Wolski provides a treatise that concludes that apparent authority, contrary to all reports, is alive and well in government contracts and is only limited by publicly available laws and regulations that restrict the government agent's power to contract; in Arakaki v. U.S. (May 30, 2006), Judge Hewitt disagrees; and in Telenor Satellite Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (June 2, 2006), handled by C&M, Judge Baskir discusses both implied authority and ratification when finding both for a bailment agreement.
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
