Ambiguous Instructions Give Disqualified Offeror A Second Chance
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.12.07
The Court of Federal Claims in Heritage of Am., LLC v. U.S. (May 31, 2007) set aside a disqualification of an offeror when the solicitation instructions were unclear about the coverage and labor rates required in the multiple regions solicited, requiring a recompetition with unambiguous instructions. In the prior, related GAO protest, GAO had refused to consider this issue because it was "untimely," but Judge George Miller in this opinion joins the solid majority of the CFC judges holding that GAO timeliness requirements are inapplicable in court protests.
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
