Air Force Award Downed by Inadequate OCI Assessment
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.15.16
In AT&T Gov’t Solutions, Inc. (released Sept. 12, 2016), in which C&M represented AT&T, GAO sustained the protest of the Air Force’s award for computer network operations and cyberspace warfare operations. GAO determined that the Air Force had failed to reasonably evaluate whether the awardee had adequately avoided or mitigated unequal access to competitively sensitive information to which the awardee had access through its subcontractor that had provided acquisition support for the program and that the Air Force award decision was also premised on flawed past performance evaluations.
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
