Strong Mitigating Factors Trump Debarment
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.30.07
In Canales v. Paulson (D.D.C. July 16, 2007, https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1330-47), the federal district court overturned a Treasury Department debarment from government contracting on the ground that the debarring official did not explain reasons for debarment in the face of strong mitigating factors (spotless record before the offense; five years since the incident; extensive business with the government in the interim; misdemeanor conviction) presented to him at the debarment proceeding.
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
