1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Deliver Uncompromised – or Else? DoD Considers Elevating Security in its Procurement Process

Deliver Uncompromised – or Else? DoD Considers Elevating Security in its Procurement Process

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.14.18

Contractors may soon need to recalibrate their approach to DoD procurements. The Department recently announced that it is reviewing a strategy dubbed “Deliver Uncompromised,” which lays out recommendations for how it can better secure its vast and varied supply chain. Central to the strategy is an increased focus on security in the procurement process. A contractor’s overall security would join cost, performance, and schedule as key evaluation pillars – marking a significant shift in how contractors compete for work. The strategy recognizes, however, that its success would likely require increased incentives for the contracting community to invest in risk mitigation, including liability protections and tax incentives. Although only a proposal for now, the strategy is yet another indicator of the government’s broader emphasis on supply chain security. Just yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 was signed into law in record time, with several provisions focused on the same issue.  

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)....

View All Insights