1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SBA Issues Final Rule On WOSB Contracting Program But Has Yet To Identify Eligible Industries

SBA Issues Final Rule On WOSB Contracting Program But Has Yet To Identify Eligible Industries

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.07.08

On October 1, 2008, the Small Business Administration issued both a proposed (http://www.crowell.com/PDF/Fed-Register_Vol73-No191_Proposed.pdf) and a final rule (http://www.crowell.com/PDF/Fed-Register_Vol73-No191_Rules-Regs.pdf) regarding the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) contracting program. While the long-awaited final rule makes a few changes to the December 27, 2007, proposed rule, including clarifying that a contracting officer may award a contract or begin performance after receipt of a protest after determining that an award is necessary to protect the public interest, the final rule dodges the key issue and fails to identify those industries where set-aside acquisitions are authorized based on WOSB underrepresentation, and, instead, in the proposed rule, the SBA seeks comments on or before October 31, 2008, on the underlying data used to determine WOSB underrepresentation, including data identifying 31 NAICS codes in which WOSBs were either underrepresented or substantially underrepresented.

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)....

View All Insights