Government Contracts at the High Court
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.24.11
On February 28, 2011, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., on the issue of whether a federal contractor's rights to an invention under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-12, are trumped by a contractor-employee inventor's prior assignment to a third party of title to the same invention. As discussed in the March 14, 2011, BNA's Federal Contracts Report article "High Noon for Bayh-Dole?" by C&M's John McCarthy and Jon Baker, if upheld, contractors performing federally funded R&D work will need to be diligent to ensure that the assignments they receive from their employee-inventors do not take a back seat to any assignment agreements between their employee-inventors and third parties.
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
