SBA Cannot Replace Agency Responsibility Findings with Its Own
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.30.11
In Spiral Solutions & Techs., Inc., the Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) reversed a size decision finding a violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule because the SBA Area Office improperly made findings on matters of responsibility--matters reserved for the contracting officer. Additionally, OHA explained that Spiral’s hiring of its subcontractor’s incumbent, non-management personnel is no longer indicative of “undue reliance” in light of Executive Order 13,495, which encourages companies to offer a right of first refusal of employment to qualified employees performing under a predecessor contract for similar services at a particular location.
Contacts
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
