1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement

Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.17

In a decision released publicly on March 31, 2017, the Court of Federal Claims denied a protest challenging a competitive range determination that left AT&T, represented by C&M, as the last remaining contender to win a 25-year contract to build and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network. The network will consolidate public safety use of the radio spectrum and prioritize first responders in times of crisis, while granting AT&T claim over large amounts of unused spectrum, as well as $6.5 billion for construction costs. The Court held, among other things, that the relatively extensive exchanges between the offerors and the agency before the competitive range determination was made were “communications,” not “discussions,” under the FAR because the agency neither intended to accept, nor permitted, proposal revisions. The Court also held that the government reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal where it coupled unacceptable financial risk with a questionable business model.

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)....