Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.02.06
In Crane & Co. (Jan. 18, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297398.pdf), GAO held that the plain language of a 1916 statute limiting to four years contracts for “distinctive currency paper” precluded the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) from encouraging competition by issuing an RFP for four years of production following a two-year “mobilization” period to allow new entrants to make required investments and amortize that investment over the production term of the contract. Recognizing that BEP was attempting to respond to criticisms of the absence of competition, including GAO reports, GAO held it still had to enforce the plain meaning of the statute, anti-competitive as that interpretation was, and the only remedy was for Congress to amend the statute.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.30.25
Are All Baby Products Related? TTAB Says “No”
The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) recently issued a refreshed opinion in the trademark dispute Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, where Naterra International, Inc. petitioned the TTAB to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for the mark BABIES' MAGIC TEA based on its own BABY MAGIC mark. On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the TTAB reconsidered an expert’s opinion about relatedness of goods based on the concept of “umbrella branding” and found that the goods are unrelated and therefore again denied the petition for cancellation.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 12.30.25
Investor Advisory Committee Recommends SEC Disclosure Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.29.25
FYI – GAO Finds Key Person “Available” Despite Accepting Employment with a Different Company
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.29.25
More Than Math: How Desjardins Recognizes AI Innovations as Patent-Eligible Technology
