Agency's Preclusionary (And Erroneous) "Revolving Door" Advice Provides Pre-Award Bid Protest Standing
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.09.08
In The CNA Corporation v. United States (April 30, 2008)
the COFC granted standing to a potential bidder arguing that it would be effectively disqualified from a procurement because a key employee, a former NIH scientist, had received an agency ethics opinion finding applicable the life-long representational ban under criminal statute 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), thus precluding her from being assigned to the contract. In finding for the protester, the COFC held that (1) the agency's 15-page legal opinion was wrong because it misapplied the definition of "personal and substantial participation" required to trigger the life-long representational ban, and, further, (2) even if the agency's ethics opinion had been correct as to a representational ban, the scope of prohibited "representation" under the statute was not as broad as the agency's interpretation and the protester would have been able to use the former NIH employee as its principal investigator were it awarded the contract.
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
