Agency Acceptably Disqualifies Offeror For Refusal To Wall Off Employee
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.26.09
In Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. (Feb. 23, 2009), the agency excluded KBR from two future Army task order competitions when the agency's CO had inadvertently forwarded source selection sensitive and contractor proprietary information to KBR's contracts manager and program manager and KBR later refused to "wall off" or isolate the project manager from the task order competitions. GAO upheld the exclusion, even though the agency admitted that it could not definitively conclude that KBR had actually obtained an unfair competitive advantage and even though the company had taken steps to permanently delete the sensitive information from its computers and email servers and the program manager had signed a sworn statement that he had not retained the sensitive information and could not remember the contents of the email.
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
