FY2017 Suspension and Debarment Trends
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.07.17
Crowell & Moring partner and former acting Air Force suspending and debarring official David Robbins published his annual examination of the government’s suspension and debarment statistics for the prior government fiscal year. The article, entitled Suspension and Debarment: FY 2017 By the Numbers ran in Law360 and may be accessed here. This article represents a deep dive into the raw suspension/debarment numbers listed on the System for Award Management and shows year-over-year trends not available on the government’s annual Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee report. It covers agency-specific trends for excluding individuals, small businesses, traditional government contractors, and non-traditional government contractors.
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
