Flawed Discussions Nixes Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.11.12
In KPMG LLP (May 21, 2012), GAO sustained a challenge to CIA's conduct of discussions, finding the agency misleadingly informed KPMG that proposals should include resumes for all proposed personnel, yet the awardee proposed – and CIA accepted – only representative resumes, which allowed the awardee to offer a lower cost. GAO also found CIA's cost realism evaluation inadequate, stressing that CIA's evaluation documentation reflected "no meaningful consideration" of whether cost reductions associated with the awardee’s technical approach would actually occur.
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
