Unduly Restrictive Specification Requires Redo
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.24.15
In Smith and Nephew Inc. (Jan. 2, 2015), publicly released this week, GAO sustained a pre-award solicitation protest alleging that the VA had unduly restricted competition with an unnecessary specification requirement. GAO concluded that the "minimum fluid absorption rate" for medical bandages demanded by the VA was not based on any demonstrable agency need, was predicated on one repudiated test study by a single contractor, and could not be met by any commercially available product in the marketplace.
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
