WMATA OIG Announces Partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.20.20
On February 18, 2020, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Inspector General Geoffrey A. Cherrington announced a partnership between WMATA Office of Inspector General special agents and the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF).
This new law enforcement partnership underscores the PCSF’s willingness to team up with state and local agencies to aggressively pursue allegations of procurement fraud and prosecute any wrongdoing. It is important that government contractors of all sizes and in all industries ensure they have the appropriate antitrust protections in place, and that they conduct routine training for all employees involved in the procurement process.
WMATA recently launched a $15.5 billion capital improvement program at the beginning of FY 2020 with funding coming from state and local governments in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, as well as federal grants. Through the program WMATA will purchase new railcars and buses and make other investments in infrastructure and equipment over the next ten years. These projects will provide many business opportunities for government contractors and they will also create a local area of focus for the WMATA-DOJ team.
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
