Undocumented Clarifications Mean Undone State Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.09.05
In a dramatic saga in the highly competitive market for state Medicaid IS contracts, a North Carolina administrative judge upheld a protest of the state’s award of a $180 million contract, holding that the state cannot base its award on clarifications that the awardee made during an unrecorded, undocumented meeting, and that the state improperly relaxed RFP technical requirements only for the awardee. The judge found the procurement so flawed that the state should start all over again, ruling for protester, EDS Information Services, which was represented jointly by Crowell & Moring and Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan of North Carolina.
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
