Government Assertion of State Secrets Privilege in Private Party Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.06.17
In a rare move, the Department of Justice intervened in Wever v. AECOM National Security Programs, Inc., asserting the state secrets privilege and requesting the dismissal of a $69 million dollar lawsuit between two private parties that it contends would risk the exposure of classified information if the suit were allowed to proceed. Although the Government was not an original party to the litigation, the Government argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the court is required to dismiss the case under the state secrets privilege because the Government, through the head of the department with control over the matter, after extensive consultation and coordination within and among relevant Executive Branch agencies, formally asserted the privilege and all three of the circumstances justifying dismissal exist: (1) the plaintiff cannot prove his or her claim without privileged evidence; (2) the defendants cannot properly defend the case without privileged evidence; and (3) further litigation would present an unjustifiable risk of disclosure.
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

