"National Security" Limits Judicial Review Of CICA Stay Override
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.23.05
In Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 27, 2005), Judge Braden of the Court of Federal Claims held that, once legitimate interests of “national security” have been asserted and established to the court’s satisfaction, the court could stop review of a “best interests” CICA stay override, holding that national security makes it “not necessary” to go further. The Court also held that national security concerns and the context of a CICA stay override justify use of a more deferential standard of review of agency action than in the normal bid protest: whether the plaintiff demonstrated a clear error of judgment.
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
