Accurate Historical Data Yields Negligent Estimate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.17
In Agility Def. & Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. United States (Feb. 6, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the government’s volume estimate in a requirements-contract solicitation cannot rely solely on historical workloads when the government expects conditions to change going forward. FAR 16.503 requires solicitations for requirements contracts to include a “realistic estimate of total quantity” based on “the most current information available.” Reversing a decision from the Court of Federal Claims, the CAFC revived the contractor’s negligent-estimate claim, holding that the government failed to comply with FAR 16.503 when its estimate relied on historical data rather than the agency’s actual expectation that changing conditions would create a surge in requirements above and beyond the historical workloads.
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
