Private Party MEO Teammate Allowed Intervention To Protect Proprietary Information
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.06
In the protest of a contract award to the Government's Most Efficient Organization (MEO) in an A-76 public/private procurement, the COFC granted MEO private team member Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.'s motion to intervene as a matter of right for the limited purpose of protecting its trade secrets and proprietary data (Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United States). The MEO did not have legal representation separate from the awarding agency, and the COFC concluded that Lockheed's interests were not adequately represented by agency counsel in the context of an A-76 procurement in which agency counsel must "wear multiple hats at the same time" and where agency counsel admitted that the "most comfortable" hat is representing the Source Selection Authority.
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
