R-E-V-I-E-W Does Not Spell R-E-L-I-E-F
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.06.04
Rejecting the contention that, after finding arbitrary and capricious conduct by procurement officials, the award must be declared invalid and set aside, the Federal Circuit in PGBA v. U.S. (Nov. 22, 2004) says that a court is to apply the normal balancing of the equities, including the public interest, when deciding whether to grant an injunction after finding for a protester on the merits. Congress only adopted the review provisions of section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, the court explained, not its seemingly mandatory relief provisions.
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
