OCIs Down Air Force Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.14.09
In L-3 Servs., Inc. (Sept. 3, 2009) the GAO found unreasonable the Air Force's conclusions that the awardee did not have either a "biased ground rules" or "unequal access to information" OCI when the awardee's subcontractor had performed procurement planning services that put it in a position to affect the subsequent competition and that gave the subcontract access to non-public information that potentially conferred an unfair competitive advantage in that subsequent competition. The Air Force had initially gotten it right, determining that the subcontractor was barred from participating in the subsequent procurement, only to reverse that decision, thereby setting the stage for GAO's decision sustaining the protest.
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
