Equal Treatment Applies Even If Minimum Discussions Threshold Met
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.06.10
In AMEC Earth & Envtl., Inc. (Dec. 22, 2009), GAO sustained a protest of a contract award by the Coast Guard for construction services because the agency had engaged in unequal discussions. GAO concluded that, while FAR § 15.306 establishes that the agency must, at a minimum, address "significant weakness and deficiencies" during discussions, if the agency opts to conduct broader discussions than the minimum, it must do so in an equal fashion and may not rely on the minimum threshold in the FAR to excuse disparate treatment.
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
