Contractors Must Go The Extra Mile For Preaward Review
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.04.05
In Billington Contracting, Inc. (Feb. 28, 2005), the ASBCA dismissed a contractor's claim for differing site conditions under a dredging contract, because documents with the relevant detail on site conditions were referenced in a contract specification and had been available to the contractor for review. The board brushed aside the contractor's complaint that the relevant records were only identified as available some 750 miles from the project site, stating that a contractor is "bound to seek" out such information.
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
