GAO Sends Agency Back To The Drawing Board -- Again
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.13.09
When Nortel, represented by C&M, challenged DEA's award of an IT services contract based on a possible OCI, DEA decided to take corrective action after GAO's "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution conference. DEA reaffirmed its selection, and in round two in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. (Dec. 30, 2008), GAO found that DEA had (1) still failed to determine the extent of the awardee's OCI and (2) unreasonably concluded that the awardee's mitigation plan was acceptable when the awardee would be required to review and provide input on designs it proposed under a separate contract with DEA.
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
