1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Government Considers On-Line Public Access To Contracts And Task/Delivery Orders

Government Considers On-Line Public Access To Contracts And Task/Delivery Orders

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.10

On May 13, 2010, the FAR Councils published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, FAR Case 2009-004, Enhancing Contract Transparency, seeking industry input on amending the FAR to enable public posting of "the text of contracts and task and delivery orders . . . . without violating statutory and regulatory prohibitions against disclosing protected information belonging to the Government or contractors." The ANPR observes that (i) "it may not be practical to apply FOIA procedures before posting in every case"; (ii) the "Councils are looking into methods for identifying the types of information that should not be posted or released to the public, as well as means for electronic processing and posting, and development of provision or clause requirements for successful offerors to provide a redacted copy of the contract"; and (iii) the "Councils are also requesting suggestions for how best to protect the types of information through redacting, locating all such information in a standard place in the contract, or other possible methods to be considered."

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)....

View All Insights