State Slammed For Adopting GAO Recommendation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.22.07
In Grunley Walsh Int'l v. U.S. (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2007), in which Crowell & Moring represented the successful plaintiff, the Court of Federal Claims held that the Department of State acted arbitrarily when it adopted a GAO recommendation to reverse its own, longstanding interpretation of the total business volume requirement in the Diplomatic Construction Program statute (22 U.S.C. § 4852). The government argued that the court must defer to State's revised interpretation, but the Court refused to do so, because that would "effectively strip this court of any real review in any case where the agency followed a recommendation of the GAO on an interpretation of a statute or regulation."
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
