DoD's Proposed Counterfeit Electronic Parts Rules Are Short on Details
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.22.13
Following up on its publication of an instruction on counterfeit parts on May 16, DoD issued a long-expected proposed rule on counterfeit electronic parts avoidance, detection, and liability, with comments due by July 15. As discussed on our blog, the rule -- which applies only to CAS-covered prime contractors but will have a much broader impact on subcontractors and suppliers -- requires that business systems include DoD-approved avoidance and detection systems, but leaves the details of the newly required systems to be fleshed out, it would seem, by DCAA and/or DCMA, and, while it imposes potentially unlimited liability for counterfeit parts, it has an exceedingly narrow "safe harbor."
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
