COFC Reverses Another Cica Stay Override
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.10.04
Although the protester’s incumbent contract (and the 6-month extension) had expired, in Keeton Corrections, Inc. v. U.S., (March 17, 2004), the Court of Federal Claims rejected as arbitrary and capricious an override decision that was premised on the purported necessity of using the awarded contract to deliver necessary correctional services to the Bureau of Prisons. The court found that the agency had not explained why sole source purchase orders could not be used to obtain the necessary services pending GAO’s protest decision, and held that such sole source orders (issued either to the protester or the awardee) would be permissible under the circumstances, and would be less harmful to competition than an override of the CICA stay.
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
