Federal Circuit Holds New Task Order Contract Awards Can Be Protested Without Full Procurement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.16
In Coast Professional, Inc. v. U.S. (July 12, 2016), the Federal Circuit revived bid protests (including that of the lead appellant, represented by Crowell & Moring) challenging task order contract awards that had previously been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the CFC. The court held that, because the appellants were challenging the “proposed award or the award” of new task orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts, which challenges fall squarely within the CFC’s statutory bid protest jurisdiction, it was irrelevant whether the new task orders, which were in the form of award-term extensions, shared some functional similarities to options or originated out of existing contracts rather than being the subject of entirely separate procurements.
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
