Protest of Private Subcontract Solicitation Has Teeth
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.13.13
In Orion Tech. Resources, LLC v. Los Alamos Nat'l Sec., LLC (Aug. 6, 2012), the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that, while, in a private context, an unsuccessful offeror generally has no right to complain, when the issuer made representations as to how the offers would be considered that it then violated and on which the offeror relied, there was an implied contract under the common law. Moreover, the court ruled that the offeror in appropriate circumstances could obtain injunctive relief or damages, including lost profits if it can prove it would have won the award if the stated rules had been followed.
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
