Protestor Bags Redo and B&P Costs, Too
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.15.08
In Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 7, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims disagreed with a prior protest denial by GAO by holding that the price realism evaluation of the Air Force's multiyear maintenance contract for its KC-135 fleet was fatally flawed because it relied on the unrealistic assumption of a non-aging fleet without adequately informing the offerors of that assumption. In addition to a ordering a complete resolicitation, Judge Lettow granted the protestor its bid and proposal costs "because of the lengthy process involved with the procurement."
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
