CFC Sustains Corrective Action Protest Where Solicitation Amendment Favored Original Awardee
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.28.16
In Prof’l. Serv. Indus. Inc. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims sustained a protest of a corrective action that the Federal Highway Administration took in the wake of a GAO decision that the awardee’s proposed program manager lacked the requisite experience. The court found that the agency’s decision to amend the solicitation was arbitrary and capricious because the agency changed the required qualifications for the program manager—in a manner that conformed to the original awardee’s proposal—rather than conducting a re-evaluation of the proposals under the un-amended solicitation’s criteria.
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
