Pre-Award Key Personnel Departure Creates Catch-22 – Do I Tell or Not?
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.24.15
In Pioneering Evolution, LLC (Dec. 8, 2015), GAO agreed with the Navy's rejection of an offer as technically unacceptable for failure to satisfy a material solicitation requirement when the protester had notified the Navy after submission of final proposal revisions (FPRs) but before award that one of its proposed key personnel had accepted another position and was no longer available to perform. GAO asserted that the protestor was required to notify the Navy but that it had no right to substitute a qualified replacement, confirming that offerors are at risk if they inform an agency of key personnel departures post-FPR.
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
