No Past Performance = Neutral, Not Negative
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.11.05
In The MIL Corp. (Dec. 30, 2004), GAO sustained a challenge to the agency's elimination of its proposal, finding that the agency improperly penalized the protester under the past performance factor for a lack of relevant experience, when the FAR requires no worse than a neutral rating in such circumstances. GAO also determined that the agency failed to give meaningful consideration to proposed prices, and it rejected the agency's argument that it was unnecessary in the context of a contract where the selected vendors will have to compete in the future for individual task orders.
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
