Failure To Update Invalidates Evaluation And Responsibility Determination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.17.06
In Greenleaf Constr. Co. (Jan. 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/29310518.pdf), GAO held that the awardee's failure to advise the agency of changes to its proposed plan for performance which arose after submission of its final proposal revision, including different key personnel and a different software system, invalidated the technical evaluation based on the original proposal. GAO also invalidated the contracting officer's responsibility determination as to the adequacy of awardee's financial resources because the contracting officer knew that an affiliated company that had provided most of the revenues of the awardee's corporate family in the DCAA analysis had been sold.
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
