New Limits On Use Of "Of A Type" Commercial Services
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.19.09
Implementing statutory requirements, FAR has been amended with interim rules (74 Fed. Reg. 52852 (Oct. 14, 2009)) providing that, when purchasing services that are not offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace but are "of a type" offered in the commercial marketplace, the services may be considered commercial items exempt from the cost or pricing data requirements of the Truth in Negotiations Act only if the contracting officer determines in writing that the offeror has submitted sufficient information to evaluate, through price analysis, the reasonableness of the price of such services. In order to make the determination required by the new regulation, the contracting officer may request the offeror to submit prices paid for the same or similar commercial items under comparable terms and conditions by both Government and commercial customers and if the contracting officer determines that such comparable information is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer may request other relevant information regarding the basis for price or cost, including information on labor costs, material costs, and overhead rates.
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
