Competitive Range Of One Gets Close Scrutiny
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.25.08
Reviewing the law that an agency's narrowing the competitive range to one results in close scrutiny, the CFC in L-3 Communications Eotech, Inc. v. U.S. (Sept. 23, 2008, http://www.crowell.com/pdf/L3-Communications_v_US-AimPoint_08-515.pdf) proceeded to set aside such a determination when the agency disqualified the protestor based on a failed functional test that it relaxed for the favored offeror. The court, after seeing a live demonstration of the hardware involved, also found irrational the agency's failure to seek clarifications when the protestor's perceived testing problem could have been corrected relatively easily.
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
