CFC Gives CICA Its Bite
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.03.08
In declaring invalid the override of a Competition in Contracting Act stay in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 10, 2008), a case litigated by C&M, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the government's "urgent and compelling" basis for the override given that it (1) failed to establish the adverse consequences of maintaining the status quo, (2) did not consider whether reasonable alternatives to the override exist, (3) afforded "unacceptably brief treatment" to the potential costs and risks to the government if GAO recommended sustaining the protest, and (4) did not "consider the impact of its override decision on competition at all." The Court also rejected the claim that the override served the "best interests" of the government, finding that a "strong preference" for a "new" or a "more cost effective" contract is insufficient to justify the override.
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
