Industrial Base Sole-Source Award Deficient
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.04.14
In Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc.; 10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC; Minden Air Corp. (Mar. 31, 2014), GAO agreed with protesters, including one represented by Crowell & Moring, that the U.S. Forest Service had unlawfully awarded a sole-source contract with a potential value of nearly $500 million. After extensive briefing and a two-day hearing, GAO found that the sole-source award was invalid because the true basis for award had been honoring a settlement agreement promise to award the contract and the Justification & Approval supporting the award both (i) improperly relied on the factually inapplicable "industrial base" exception to the full and open competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act and (ii) failed to identify the critical facts relevant to the award.
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
