Legal Privilege in Internal Investigations Analyzed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.02.15
The latest ABA Criminal Justice magazine features an article by C&M attorneys, "The Evolving Landscape of Legal Privilege in Internal Investigations." In the article, we analyze a series of high profile cases involving disputes over the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and we provide insights on avoiding potential pitfalls (the D.C. Circuit's August 2015 opinion upholding privilege in the KBR dispute is explored in Crowell and Moring's August 12, 2015 Client Alert).
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
