"Piggy-Backer" Falls at GAO
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.01.05
In VSE Corp; Johnson Controls World Svs. Inc. (May 23, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2904523.pdf), GAO held that Johnson Controls could not circumvent GAO's strict timeliness rules by "piggy-backing" an untimely protest of a sole source award by the Department of Homeland Security onto a timely protest previously filed by VSE. Nonetheless, GAO found the sole source bridge construction contract was improper because DHS failed to prepare a required written justification and approval, and it expressly held that Johnson Controls, as well as VSE, must be given an opportunity to demonstrate an ability to satisfy DHS' requirement.
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
