GAO Repeats Protective Order Warning
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.03.08
In denying the motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of the protest in PWC Logistics Servs. (Mar. 31, 2008) for breach of the protective order by the client retaining for a week protected material and distributing it within the company, GAO repeated that this case is to serve as a warning to other protestors: if the client receives from its attorneys any materials that are marked as subject to protective order, they are immediately to close and return or destroy the materials, and their attorneys are to provide prompt notice of the violation.
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
