Unfortunate Change To Settlement Fees And Costs Allowability Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.21.09
Reversing the ASBCA decision in Tecom, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 53884 et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,674 (Sept. 21, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds in Geren v. Tecom, Inc., No. 2008-1171 (May 19, 2009), that legal fees and costs incurred in connection with settling a private action for employment discrimination unrelated to fraud will be allowable only if the contractor can establish that the private plaintiff had very little likelihood of success on the merits. This ruling, which will be discussed next week at Crowell & Moring's OOPS conference, will greatly complicate the determination of allowable costs and place the responsible government contracting officer in the difficult position of second-guessing each settlement decision.
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
