Imminent Qualification As Source Must Be Considered By Agency
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.17.07
In Barnes Aerospace Group (Dec. 26, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298864.pdf), GAO sustained a challenge to the Air Force's sole-source award for the repair of certain "aviation critical safety item" aircraft parts to the purportedly lone qualified source. GAO found that (1) the Air Force improperly proceeded on the basis of a sole-source justification (prepared even before the pre-solicitation notice was issued) that did not consider the protester's potentially imminent qualification as a second approved source, and (2) the Air Force engaged in unequal treatment by ignoring the awardee's own failure to requalify as an approved source.
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
