No Recovery Under EAJA for Employee’s Costs Working on an Appeal
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.28.20
In GSI & Whitesell-Green JV (Jan. 30, 2020), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied a contractor’s request for Equal Access to Justice Act fees that reflected its employees’ costs of supporting the entitlement appeal. The Board rejected the contractor’s argument that its employees’ costs were similar to attorney’s fees finding support in Fanning Phillips, Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1998), which held that EAJA did not cover costs related to a contractor employees’ “personal absence from a business” or “other expenses” or “time spent [as] an ‘expert witness.’”
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
