NRO Prohibits Exclusive Teaming Agreements
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.09.04
The National Reconaissance Office has adopted a clause prohibiting offerors on NRO procurements from entering into exclusive teaming agreements, based upon a determination that "such arrangements unduly limit competition." N15.209-70(i), prescribing N52.215-020, "Exclusive Teaming Prohibition (May 2004)." By contrast, having received comments that it could have the effect of impairing legitimate, pro-competitive teaming arrangements, DOD in April 2002 withdrew a proposed DFAR that would have required contracting personnel to refer to the Justice Department exclusive teaming agreements that they considered to be "anti-competitive," finding that there was no demonstrated need for such a regulation.
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
