DOJ's Procurement Collusion Strike Force Amps Up Its Enforcement Ranks
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.13.20
Just days after the anniversary of its launch, the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force has expanded its ranks to include 11 new national partners. The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, as well as nine additional U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, have joined the government’s effort to combat collusion, fraud, and antitrust crimes in the public procurement process. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim promised “even more success” for the PCSF in the coming year “[b]y growing [its] national footprint, and folding in additional subject-matter experts.” The PCSF currently has more than 360 agent, analyst, and other law enforcement and OIG working members, hailing from 46 unique agencies and offices at the federal, state, and local levels.
This expansion – on top of news that DOJ has appointed Daniel Glad, former assistant chief of the Chicago field office, as the PCSF’s first permanent director – underscores the Antitrust Division’s continued focus on potential antitrust violations involving public procurement and the increased importance of enlisting counsel experienced in both antitrust and government contracts.
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
