Court Of Federal Claims Examines Contracting Authority
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.05.08
Following a recent Federal Circuit decision, Winter v. Cath-Dr/Balti Joint Venture (Aug. 17, 2007), which held that a contractor cannot rely on a government agent's implied authority when the contract "explicitly and exclusively" assigns the particular function to the CO, the Court of Federal Claims reaffirmed the viability of implied authority in Stevens Van Lines v. U.S. (Jan. 23, 2008). In Stevens, Senior Judge Smith held that a government official has implied authority to bind the government when "such authority is considered to be an integral part of the duties assigned" to that employee and when the power to contract is "appropriate or essential" to the performance of the employee's duties.
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
