Set-aside Determination Must Be Industry-Specific
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.07.12
In DynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, a small business challenged on constitutional grounds a Navy set-aside for 8(a) small disadvantaged businesses of a simulator buy. The D.C. district court held that there is sufficient evidence of discrimination that limits minority business development for the 8(a) program to withstand a facial challenge, but that, without an agency determination of discrimination in the military simulation and training industry specifically, the Navy was enjoined from using an 8(a) set-aside procurement for the simulator.
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
