Court Gives Teeth To Service Disabled Veteran Status
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.27.10
In Infiniti Info. Solutions, LLC v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims set aside an 8(a) award made by HUD because the agency acted arbitrarily by claiming that a vendor's Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned status was simply a "preference" when it was actually a requirement. Additionally, the Court determined that HUD improperly issued a statement of work to the vendors in contravention of SBA regulations that allow only for informal assessments of participants' capabilities.
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
