CFC Has Jurisdiction Over "Nonprocurement" Protests
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.29.10
In Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States (Mar. 1, 2010), the Federal Circuit found that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to adjudicate a protest involving a Navy solicitation to lease its own real property to another party. GAO and CFC had each dismissed the protest, but the Federal Circuit held that, although there was no jurisdiction under the bid protest provision inserted by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act because the Navy's attempt to lease its own property was not a government procurement, the Tucker Act's pre-ADRA, implied-in-fact contract jurisdiction for nonprocurement protests survived because ADRA did not otherwise provide a remedy for such disputes.
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
