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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
