NASA Pushes FAR, Far Away for Commercial Crew Program
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.29.11
In a recent report, GAO questioned whether NASA could ensure adequate price competition using a FAR-based acquisition approach for its Commercial Crew Program because, according to the GAO, substantially reduced funding would jeopardize NASA’s plan to award multiple contracts for the program’s integrated design phase. NASA concurred, and on December 15, 2011, announced that it would abandon using FAR-based contracting for the next stage of the program and instead would rely on “multiple, competitively awarded Space Act Agreements” to foster competition and give NASA “the flexibility to adjust technical direction, milestones and funding” in order to decrease reliance on foreign governments for sending Americans into space.
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
