Misleading Discussions Can Be With Awardee
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.19.06
In Advanced Systems Development, Inc. (Sept. 19, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298411.pdf), the GAO held that the agency improperly tipped the tables when it incorrectly advised the future awardee in discussions that one portion of its price violated the solicitation's price target and never disclosed that the excess was caused at least in part by an upward adjustment the agency had made to compensate for an error in another part of the awardee's pricing proposal. In response to this incorrect and incomplete information provided during discussions, the offeror lowered its final price below that of the competition, including the protestor, who prevailed on the theory that the agency's discussions with the awardee were not meaningful.
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
