Turn Square Corners or Sit on Sideline
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.09.12
The Federal Circuit in Digitalis Educ. Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 4, 2012) emphasized that a company wanting to protest must itself satisfy the stipulated process. In this case, the company lost its right to complain of a sole-source award to a competitor because it did not routinely check FedBizOpps, where the agency published a notice of the proposed award, or submit its own statement of capability to show it could do the job, as the notice in FedBizOpps required.
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
