Agency's Corrective Action Based Upon GAO Recommendation Reasonable
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.06.09
In ASRC Research & Tech. Solutions, LLC (Aug. 21, 2008), GAO determined that NASA conducted flawed technical and past performance evaluations and recommended a limited re-evaluation that ultimately led to a contract award to the protester (represented by C&M). The awardee in the first competition fought to turn the tables on ARTS in a subsequent protest before the CFC, but ARTS successfully defended the award in SP Systems, Inc. v. United States (Feb. 11, 2009), in which the Court found that, although NASA could have taken other corrective actions, NASA's decision to follow GAO's recommendation strictly was reasonable.
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
