Corrective Action Needs Correcting
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.05
In Resource Consultants, Inc. (June 2, 2004 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2930733.pdf), the GAO sustained a protest because the agency had "abandoned" one of the ground rules for the re-evaluation of proposals, a re-evaluation that had been conducted as corrective action in response to an earlier protest. According to GAO, while the terms of the re-evaluation permitted offerors to submit revised price proposals only, revisions to the awardee's staffing costs were so extensive as to constitute technical proposal revisions; therefore, the agency should have permitted all offerors to submit revised technical proposals.
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
