1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |STARK II PHASE III: A Detailed Section-By-Section Analysis of the Long-Awaited “Final” Rule

STARK II PHASE III: A Detailed Section-By-Section Analysis of the Long-Awaited “Final” Rule

Client Alert | 11 min read | 10.02.07

 The Crowell & Moring Health Care Group is pleased to provide our clients, colleagues, and friends with our legal analysis of the Stark II Phase III Regulations, recently published in the September 5, 2007 Federal Register. These new regulations present both welcome relief and unanticipated future challenges in the manner in which physician financial relationships with DHS entities are structured. Our goal in preparing this analysis was to create a thoughtful, practical, and "user-friendly" Stark Law resource that incorporates references to prior rulemaking as well as to the proposed 2008 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Rule. We hope you'll agree that we have accomplished this goal. As always, please feel free to contact your regular Crowell & Moring attorney if you have any questions regarding the analysis, which can be accessed by clicking on the image or link below.




www.crowell.com/pdf/expertise/healthcare/StarkLaw_2007.pdf


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)....