GSA Proposes to Codify Override of Some Commercial Terms
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.07.16
GSA issued a proposed rule to amend its acquisition regulation to make unenforceable certain common commercial supplier agreement (CSA) terms, a follow-up to the class deviation (discussed here) released last year. While some of the common commercial terms targeted arguably are, as GSA asserts, inconsistent or create ambiguity with federal law (e.g., provisions imposing non-federal law, arbitration provisions, and indemnification provisions), some likely are not (e.g., provisions giving precedence to government terms, placing restrictions on unilateral termination for breach, and requiring the contractor to provide the text of terms incorporated by reference).
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
