Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.02.06
In Crane & Co. (Jan. 18, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297398.pdf), GAO held that the plain language of a 1916 statute limiting to four years contracts for “distinctive currency paper” precluded the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) from encouraging competition by issuing an RFP for four years of production following a two-year “mobilization” period to allow new entrants to make required investments and amortize that investment over the production term of the contract. Recognizing that BEP was attempting to respond to criticisms of the absence of competition, including GAO reports, GAO held it still had to enforce the plain meaning of the statute, anti-competitive as that interpretation was, and the only remedy was for Congress to amend the statute.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.01.26
What U.S. Patent Holders Need to Know About Inequitable Conduct Right Now
If a court finds that a patent applicant intentionally misrepresented or withheld material information from the USPTO with the intent to deceive, the consequences are severe, leading to unenforceability of the entire patent (and likely any later patents claiming priority to the unenforceable patent).
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.26
Qatar Labor Law: Key Amendments Introduced by Law No. 9 of 2026
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.29.26
When Trade Secret Theft Becomes Racketeering: What the Fifth Circuit’s New Ruling Means
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.26.26
Federal Roundup: Updates for PBMs and Medicare Advantage Organizations
