Presolicitation Statements Not Dispositive Of Whether Mod Is Beyond Scope
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.28.05
An agency's presolicitation statement that it did not initially intend a contract to include certain work did not bar the agency from later adding that work, according to the Court of Federal Claims in HDM Corp. v. United States (Dec. 14, 2005). Whether a contract was amended beyond its scope depends upon the breadth of the stated objectives of the solicitation, whether bidders were told that work could be added, and the nature of the added work, so early agency statements are not dispositive, the court held in this case successfully litigated by Crowell & Moring.
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
