Defacto Debarment: Broad Contracting Prohibitions For Many Expatriate Corporations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.10.09
On July 1st , the FAR Council issued a broad-reaching prohibition on using fiscal year 2006-2009 appropriated funds for contracting with any corporation (or subsidiary of a corporation) that is an inverted domestic for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 7874) or would be considered an inverted domestic under the Code except for the fact that the inversion transactions were completed on or before March 4, 2003. This new rule contains a much broader prohibition on federal contracting than any previous statute or regulation, applying the tax law definition of inverted domestic (and eliminating the 2003 grandfather provision), instead of the ;narrower definition contained in the Department of Homeland Security statute (6 USC 395).
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
