Happy Holidays From The Far Council -- Proposed Restrictions On Allowable Airfare
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.21.07
In a proposed change to FAR 31.205-46(b) (72 Fed. Reg. 72325 (Dec. 20, 2007)), the FAR Council is seeking public comments on a proposal to change the standard for allowable airfare from "the lowest customary standard, coach, or equivalent airfare offered during normal business hours" to nothing "in excess of the lowest priced coach class, or equivalent, airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours." While it appears from the comments in the proposed regulation and what is known about the background of this proposal that the principal purpose of the proposal is to measure the unallowable cost attributable to premium airfares by disallowing the excess over the lowest available discounted airfare available, the proposal obviously has the potential for creating serious difficulties for all contractors and all travel where the lowest price "available to the contractor" is determined in an ephemeral internet market that changes literally from minute to minute and depends on a variety of factors including the fliers' willingness to accept advance purchase and minimum stay requirements, restrictions on changes and refundability, and choice of carrier.
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
