Auction Concept Still Lives at CFC
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.10.10
In The Sheridan Corp. v. U.S. (Nov. 5, 2010), the CFC set aside the agency's corrective action when, in the face of a GAO protest, the agency announced another round of offers and a new evaluation. The court noted that (a) the record contained no justification by the agency for the corrective action, (b) even if the protest assertions made at GAO were well taken they would only require a reevaluation of the existing offers, and (c) the awardee was irreparably harmed by a new round of offers when its winning price had been disclosed to the other offerors.
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
