Post-Award Challenge to Solicitation Defect Upheld
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.15.15
In Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States (June 5, 2015), the Court of Federal Claims sustained protests against the Air Force's award of a contract to operate, maintain, and support an air base in Greenland and enjoined performance by a Danish subsidiary of an American company when the court interpreted an eligibility requirement to prohibit award to non-Danish primes. The court rejected the Air Force's argument that the rule of Blue & Gold Fleet barred offerors from raising the solicitation defect post-award, because the ambiguity was latent and the Air Force had discovered it three months prior to award but had failed to correct it.
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
