GAO Sides With COFC In Continued Battle Over Hubzone Set-Aside Priority
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.21.10
GAO in DGR Assocs., Inc.(May 14, 2010), relied on "unambiguous" statutory language instead of a contrary 2009 opinion letter from DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel to hold that a procuring agency must first consider whether the conditions for a HUBZone set-aside exist before proceeding with an 8(a) set-aside. With this decision, GAO falls into line with (and cites with approval) the recent Court of Federal Claims decision, Mission Critical Solution v. U.S (Mar. 2, 2010), appeal docketed (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010), to the effect that set-asides to HUBZone contractors are mandatory whenever the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 657a are met.
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
