Awards Reinstated After Faulty 'Corrective Action'
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.11.14
In WHR Group, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 8, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims set aside an agency's "corrective action" terminating three blanket purchase agreements for employee relocation services because that action was not narrowly tailored to address the flaw in the underlying procurement. While the agency cited a laundry list of reasons for why it believed termination and reprocurement was necessary, Judge Block rejected nearly all of them and, as to the one issue that legitimately raised a concern about the prior evaluation, he concluded that a reevaluation would address the problem without a full resolicitation.
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
