You Win Some/You Lose Some
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.06
In our Bullet Point of May, 19, 2006, we reported that CMS had lost a bid protest on one of the first competitive procedures to replace the existing fiscal intermediary and Medicare carrier contractors. In a companion protest that the same protester filed on another award under the same RFP, CIGNA Gov't Services, LLC (May 4, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297915.pdf), CMS prevailed against allegations that CMS had “completely abdicated” its responsibility to perform a cost realism analysis, as GAO found that CMS had considered all relevant information in the awardee's proposal and that there was no basis to question the reasonableness of CMS's analysis.
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
