'No Prejudice' Response to Protest of Past Performance Evaluation Tantamount to Concession of Error
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.31.14
In a recent decision, GAO sustained Native Resource Dev. Co.'s protest that its past performance should have been rated Outstanding given the undisputed record of the agency's superlative written findings. GAO held that the agency's response, which was solely that if the protester's past performance merited a higher rating, then so did the awardee's, was "tantamount to a concession" that it could not defend its assignment of a Satisfactory rating and dismissed the agency's findings about the essential equivalency of protester's and awardee's past performance as merely a post hoc argument to be given little weight.
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
