1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Raise Confirmed! DoD Finalizes Doubling of CPSR Threshold

Raise Confirmed! DoD Finalizes Doubling of CPSR Threshold

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.20

Effective December 31, 2019, the DoD issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to establish a DoD contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) threshold of $50M at DFARS 244.302, doubling the existing $25M threshold at FAR 44.302(a). The final rule adopts the proposed rule (discussed here) without any substantive changes. In response to a comment, the final rule clarifies that contractors whose relevant sales have not reached the new threshold may opt to allow their approval to expire rather than incur the costs to maintain a system that meets the criteria for an approved system; in that case, the Government and contractor would continue with consent packages. But, if an approved purchasing system is necessary to support a particular program, the contractor can work with the contracting officer to obtain a CPSR based on risk or pressing need. The final rule also notes that it is a simple increase in the threshold, and does not impact any existing provisions or clauses.

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)....