Limits On Bid Protest Review Reinforced
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.08.09
In Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc.--Birmingham v. U.S. (Nov. 17, 2009), the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court for rewriting the RFP and then finding that the agency had not conducted a reasonable price realism analysis, when its review should have been limited to whether the agency's evaluation was consistent with the criteria as set forth in the RFP. The appeals court noted that this was not a case in which the agency had failed to consider an important aspect of the situation, but, rather, had considered it in a reasonable way different from that articulated by the lower court.
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
