Chutzpah Goes Unrewarded
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.24.06
The contractor in Armour of Am. v. U.S. (CFC Feb. 14, 2006) alleged "no cause of action" when it argued that it should not have been terminated for default when it was obvious from its offer that it could not meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP/contract and the FAR required the agency to reject nonconforming offers. Still alive, though, is the issue of whether the agency breached its good faith duties by making the award with actual knowledge of the nonconformity and then defaulting early on in the program.
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
