1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Trump’s Spring Cleaning – Executive Order Targets Agencies to Improve "Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability"

Trump’s Spring Cleaning – Executive Order Targets Agencies to Improve "Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability"

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.15.17

On March 13, 2017, the Trump Administration issued an executive order for a “comprehensive plan for reorganizing the executive branch[,]” which, according to its text, “is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch….” To this end, the Order directs agency heads, within 180 days of the date of the order, to submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget “a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.” The OMB Director, in turn, must “propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies…, components of agencies, and agency programs.” Notably, the OMB Director must “publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch,” and must consider such suggestions when formulating the aforementioned plan.

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)....