Sole-Source Protest Win Nets Only Protest Costs
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.08.05
In Europe Displays, Inc. (Dec. 5, 2005, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297099.pdf), GAO sustained a protest challenging a sole-source award under Simplified Acquisition Procedures because the agency’s justification was not objectively reasonable based on the information reasonably available to the agency, regardless of whether the agency had acted in good faith. However, because the contract had been fully performed by the time of the GAO decision, GAO awarded the protester only its protest costs, reasoning that the cost of responding to a FedBizOpps announcement of a proposed sole-source award, including preparation of a capability statement, is not a “proposal” cost for which GAO can recommend reimbursement.
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
