Court Tackles Hubzone Issues In Two Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.05
In Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 4, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims, after finding it has jurisdiction to review a SBA protest decision of a bidder's HUBZone qualification, decided that the SBA had appropriately found the bidder qualified because its "principal office" (which was in a HUBZone) was different from its headquarters (which was not). In Manson Construction Co. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2005), the court validated award to the second-low bidder which won because of application of the HUBZone preference, while also upholding the agency's revision of its internal estimate that brought the contractor within the "zone" of permissible cost.
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
