Awardees in Multiple-Award Procurements Can Challenge Award Decisions to Fellow Awardees
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.16
In Nat’l Air Cargo, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 28, 2016), the CFC concluded that awardees in a procurement contemplating the award of multiple IDIQ contracts are interested parties with standing to challenge the validity of the awards to other contract awardees in the procurement. In a significant departure from GAO's stance of the issue, the court held that, even when all task order work under the IDIQ is to be competed at a later date, each awardee suffers a non-trivial injury from the improper addition to the original pool of awardees because the size of the pool has a material impact on the likelihood of winning future task order work.
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
