Only Significant OCIs Require Mitigation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.18.10
On August 5, 2010, the Federal Circuit in PAI Corp. v. U.S. affirmed the lower court's determination that contracting officers have an obligation to mitigate "significant" OCIs, but that the FAR does not require "mitigation of other types of conflicts, such as apparent or potential non-significant conflicts." The Federal Circuit also held that contracting officers have broad discretion to determine whether an OCI is "significant" and that FAR 9.504(a) does not require that contracting officers document their initial identification and evaluation of potential conflicts.
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
