DOE Solution To Underfunded Pension Plans: Don't Pay For Them
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.06
In a "notice" issued April 27, 2006 (http://directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/351/n3511.pdf), DOE announced that "after a date to be negotiated with each Contractor, but no later than March 1, 2007," DOE will try to incorporate provisions in its contracts that would appear to make defined-benefit pensions and retiree medical benefits for new employees unallowable and prohibit reimbursement for plan enhancements unless approved in advance by DOE. It seems unlikely that DOE would have the authority to impose these requirements on existing contracts unilaterally, and some of them, particularly restrictions on the allowability of costs required by collective bargaining agreements, would conflict with existing FAR cost allowability rules.
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
