Clean Energy Award Polluted
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.13
In Nexant, Inc (Jan. 30, 2013), GAO sustained the protest of Nexant, Inc., represented by Crowell & Moring, to the award of a clean energy consulting contract by USAID, finding that USAID engaged in misleading discussions, based its evaluation on a flawed methodology that led to numerous unreasonable evaluation conclusions, and did not reasonably explain its basis for choosing the awardee's higher cost proposal. While GAO ultimately declined to rule on the issue of what weight it should afford to a source selection decision document (SSDD) drafted after both contract award and the filing of a protest, it did note that there is "a reasonable concern" whether such an after-the-fact SSDD can accurately represent the fair and considered judgment of the agency.
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
