Contractor Wins Directed Award In A-76 Protest
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.13.04
The GAO in BAE Systems Tech. Servs., Inc. (Jan. 28, 2004) (represented by C&M), directed the Navy to award a contract to the private offeror in an A-76 competition in which the in-house entity failed to comply with, or include costs for, various solicitation requirements. GAO determined that the agency's post-protest attempts to cure the in-house offer’s deficiencies were "inappropriate" and damaging to "the integrity of the A-76 process" and criticized the agency for failing to perform the independent review mandated by the A-76 process when it reviewed the in-house offeror’s compliance with only one portion of the solicitation, rather than all.
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
