Option Exercise Not Fully Discretionary
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.29.06
Relying on CFC precedent, the GSBCA in Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. (June 26, 2006, http:// www.gsbca.gsa.gov/appeals/y1636726.pdf), reiterated that an agency by contract can restrict its normally unlimited discretion whether or not to exercise an option. In this instance, the contractor stated a valid case that the agency had violated its express duties to use its best efforts to gain funding to allow exercise of the option and not to buy other equipment to do the same job.
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
