Claim Preparation Attorney's Fees Award Affirmed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.15
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (April 24, 2015), a C&M case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the contractor for claim preparation granted by the Court of Federal Claims, remanding the matter back to the CFC only to recalculate the starting point for interest and to add overhead and profit to the award. The court rejected the government's principal attacks, finding that SUFI was permitted to sue in the CFC after the CO had failed to issue a timely final decision on its claim, fees in this non-CDA case were foreseeable and recoverable as breach damages, and C&M's standard rates were reasonable, while finding merit in SUFI's cross-appeal requesting overhead and profit as part of the breach damages available under the common law.
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
