Contracting Officer's Final Decision Not Afforded RES Judicata Status
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
In Roxco, Ltd. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2004), the COFC, among other things, rejected the Air Force's argument that Roxco's equitable adjustment claims, which were submitted more than a year after the Contracting Officer's default termination decision, should be barred through the application of res judicata, even if, as the Air Force asserted, those claims could have been raised as defenses to the default termination. The COFC reasoned that an extension of res judicata to contracting officers' final decisions would contradict the Contract Disputes Act's six-year statutory time limit for filing claims.
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
