1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Blanket Purchase Order Does Not Equal Task Order Contract

Blanket Purchase Order Does Not Equal Task Order Contract

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.19.10

In C & B Constr., Inc. (Jan. 6, 2010), GAO explained that it had jurisdiction to review protests of task orders issued under Blanket Purchase Agreements ("BPA"), even if the task order is valued less than $10 million (the statutory limit for GAO to review protests of task or delivery order contracts), because BPAs are different from task or delivery order contracts. GAO then sustained the protest because the source selection decision was based on numerical scores without adequate substantive discussion.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....