Set-Aside Decision Doesn't Require Responsibility Determination
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.30.14
In Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 27, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed that, when applying the "Rule of Two" in a small business set-aside determination, the contracting officer needs only a "reasonable expectation" that at least two responsible small businesses would submit offers and is not required to undertake a responsibility determination pursuant to FAR 9.104-1. This establishes a relatively low threshold of market research under the "Rule of Two" and confirms that a contracting officer need not collect information on factors such as capability, capacity, and past performance on small businesses at the acquisition planning phase of a 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
