Non-Offeror Has Standing, and FAR Part 12 Commercial Item Restrictions Apply to GSA Schedule Procurements
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.12.15
In CGI Fed. Inc. v. U.S.(Mar. 10, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that CGI was a "prospective offeror" and therefore had standing to pursue its preaward protest, despite the fact that CGI did not submit a proposal, which was due after CGI filed at GAO but before CGI filed at the CFC. The Federal Circuit also reversed the CFC on the merits, holding that the proscription in FAR part 12 of terms that are inconsistent with customary commercial practice does apply to solicitations for orders under FAR 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedule) contracts.
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
