Gotta Give A Guy A Fair Chance On The Redo
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.14.07
GAO in Sikorsky Aircraft Co. (Aug. 30, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2991455.pdf) slapped down the AF's attempt in its large helicopter procurement simply to "reevaluate" and not give Sikorsky and Lockheed a chance to alter their proposals after GAO found the initial award to Boeing improper. The problem with the AF's approach was that it materially changed the evaluation scheme but then did not give the protestors a chance to revise their proposals to take that into account.
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
