Absent Formal Elimination, Offerors Have Standing to Pursue Size Protests
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.16
In granting an appeal filed by Crowell & Moring, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals overturned an underlying area office decision dismissing a company’s challenge to the eligibility of an awardee in a DoE set-aside procurement. Rejecting the area office’s grounds that the company “would not have a reasonable chance” to be selected for award even if it prevailed in its size protest, OHA held that the company had standing to protest because its low technical ratings did not render its proposal unacceptable and the agency had made no finding that it was otherwise ineligible for award.
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
