Recourse For Negative Past Performance Evaluation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.19.09
In Todd Construction, L.P. v. U.S., 85 Fed. Cl. 34 (2008), the CFC affirmed its jurisdiction over a claim challenging an agency's past performance evaluation brought under the Contract Disputes Act. John McCarthy and Addie Cliffe of C&M have authored a pair of articles "Revisiting the Past: Todd Construction, Inc v. U.S. and Judicial Review of Past Performance Evaluations, Part I," (and Part II) which, in the first, address the jurisdictional issue and applicable standard of review and, in the second, explore the remedies available to the court to cure any deficiencies encountered (an issue not addressed by the court in its jurisdictional decision).
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
