NAICS Challengers at Court Must First Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.27.15
On April 22, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled in Palladian Partners, Inc. v. U.S. that, although the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review challenges to NAICS code decisions made by the SBA's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA), in order for an offeror to challenge such a decision at the court, the offeror had to have participated in the appeal at OHA brought by a different offeror. Here, because the offeror failed to do so, the offeror had not exhausted its administrative remedies, and the case was remanded to be dismissed.
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
