Services In Contract Don't Trump "Non-Manufacturer Rule"
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.13.06
In Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States (July 24, 2006), a pre-award bid protest of small business set-aside procurements, the Court of Federal Claims held that the Small Business Act's "non-manufacturer rule" requires recipients of small business set-aside contracts to provide products only of domestic small business manufacturers, even if the contract is for both products and services. Finding, inter alia, that the statute is "clear and unambiguous" in its application of the rule to "any" contract for the supply of a product, Judge Bush rejected government pleas for deference to SBA's less-restrictive applications of the rule and permanently enjoined set-aside awards to offerors who failed to certify compliance.
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
