Chutzpah Goes Unrewarded
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.24.06
The contractor in Armour of Am. v. U.S. (CFC Feb. 14, 2006) alleged "no cause of action" when it argued that it should not have been terminated for default when it was obvious from its offer that it could not meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP/contract and the FAR required the agency to reject nonconforming offers. Still alive, though, is the issue of whether the agency breached its good faith duties by making the award with actual knowledge of the nonconformity and then defaulting early on in the program.
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
