Lack of Documented Award Defeats Discussions with Putative Awardee
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.02.16
In SRA Int’l, Inc. (released last week), although the solicitation allowed the government to negotiate a final reduced price with the prospective awardee after it had been selected for award, GSA conducted discussions with the eventual awardee before documenting any best value determination and before the evaluations were even finalized. Because GSA did not conduct discussions with any other offerors, GAO held that the discussions were unequal and recommended that GSA go back, establish a competitive range, and open discussions with all remaining offerors.
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
