OCI Mitigation Doesn't Go Far Enough
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.06
In Greenleaf Constr. Co. (Jan. 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/29310518.pdf), GAO found an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest because the owner of the awardee was to receive a stream of payments from another contractor that the awardee would be overseeing and evaluating and whose economic well-being the awardee therefore could significantly affect. The owner of the awardee had been required by the agency to sell the other contractor in order to avoid having an OCI interest in the profits of that other contractor, but GAO found that the interest of the awardee's owner in ensuring that the other contractor would be able to continue making the payments to him might impair the awardee's objectivity in performing its contract evaluation duties.
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
