Claim Preparation Attorney's Fees Award Affirmed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.15
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (April 24, 2015), a C&M case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the contractor for claim preparation granted by the Court of Federal Claims, remanding the matter back to the CFC only to recalculate the starting point for interest and to add overhead and profit to the award. The court rejected the government's principal attacks, finding that SUFI was permitted to sue in the CFC after the CO had failed to issue a timely final decision on its claim, fees in this non-CDA case were foreseeable and recoverable as breach damages, and C&M's standard rates were reasonable, while finding merit in SUFI's cross-appeal requesting overhead and profit as part of the breach damages available under the common law.
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
