Court Limits Good Faith Presumptions Of Government
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.05
In a scholarly analysis that traces the history of the presumptions of regularity and good faith duties, Judge Wolski of the Court of Federal Claims in Tecom, Inc. v. U.S. (June 27, 2005) explains the proper scope of the presumptions. Among the conclusions he draws are that (a) subjective animus and the presumption of good faith conduct of government officials has no relevance in considering a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (b) clear and convincing evidence is only needed when fraud or quasi-criminal wrongdoing is alleged; and (c) the presumption of regularity generally means only that the predicate acts that were required of public officials can be presumed upon proof of their natural results, which can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
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
