No Match, No Deal In FSS Buy
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.05.05
Reiterating once again that the exemption from full and open competition for orders placed under GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule contracts applies only to items and services in fact listed and priced in the FSS contracts, in American Sys. Consulting, Inc. (Dec. 13, 2004), GAO sustained a protest because the awardee’s Schedule contract description of education/experience and functional requirements for a particular job title did not match those for the RFQ position proposed to be filled. Neither the fact that the background of the individual proposed met the RFQ requirements nor the fact that the RFQ called for quotations citing the FSS job title that “mostly nearly equated” to the RFQ position cured the legal flaw, because the exemption from the competition requirements applies only to the items/services offered by the explicit terms of the Schedule contract.
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
