Supreme Court Vacates and Remands D.C. Circuit’s Decision in Broadview Solar Case in Light of Chevron Ruling
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.03.24
In one of the first rulings applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC for further consideration.
The case, otherwise known as Broadview Solar, involves the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) interpretation of “qualifying facility” (“QF”) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). While PURPA permits certain renewable energy generators with a power production capacity of 80 MW or less to qualify for benefits, such as an exemption from certain filing obligations and a requirement that electric utilities must purchase their output in non-RTO regions, the Commission concluded in Broadview Solar that a solar and battery facility with a 160 MW gross capacity was nonetheless a QF under PURPA because the project was physically limited to providing 80 MW of power to the grid at any given time.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed FERC’s order on appeal, but on remand must now review the case without deferring to FERC’s interpretation. It will be important to watch this case closely, particularly for those renewable generators that have relied on or planned to rely on Broadview Solar in qualifying for QF status.
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




