Failure to Comply with Section L Instructions Invalidates Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.13.12
In The Emergence Group (Feb. 29, 2012), the protestor, represented by Crowell & Moring, achieved an exception to the general rule that an agency is not required to evaluate offerors for compliance with RFP submission (Section L) requirements. In this case, the evaluation criteria (Section M) stated that compliance with Section L was mandatory, and the protest was sustained because the agency allowed offerors failing to submit the minimum number of past performance references per Section L to receive top evaluation marks.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
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.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
