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 | 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
