GAO Rejects Rubber-Stamp LPTA Technical Evaluation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.14.15
In a low-price-technically-acceptable procurement for IDIQ contracts for flame-resistant Army combat shirts, GAO sustained a challenge to the technical evaluation because the agency did not critically evaluate whether any of the three awardees' proposals actually met a particular solicitation requirement. GAO rejected the agency's nondescript finding that each awardee's proposal was "acceptable," and instead concluded that none of the awardees had provided a meaningful narrative addressing the requirement and that one, in fact, had included test data in its proposal showing that it did not meet the requirement.
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
