1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Proof Of Actual Bias Not Required To Show Conflict Of Interest

Proof Of Actual Bias Not Required To Show Conflict Of Interest

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.07.06

Using the rarely-invoked exception to its timeliness rules for protests raising issues of widespread interest to the procurement community, the GAO in Celadon Laboratories, Inc., (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/ 298533.pdf, Nov. 1, 2006) upheld a protest challenging an HHS decision not to fund the protester’s Small Business Innovation Research proposal, finding a conflict of interest where the members of the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) that evaluated (and rejected) the proposal were employed by, or funded by, firms that support a competing technology. Because of the specific conflict information protester brought to the agency’s attention during the evaluation, GAO not only rejected HHS’s reliance on its SEP’s self-certification but also, rejected the argument that actual bias must be shown and instead concluded that in cases in which the evaluator has a conflict, prejudice is presumed.

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)....

View All Insights