1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Corrective Action Needs Correcting

Corrective Action Needs Correcting

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.05

In Resource Consultants, Inc. (June 2, 2004 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2930733.pdf), the GAO sustained a protest because the agency had "abandoned" one of the ground rules for the re-evaluation of proposals, a re-evaluation that had been conducted as corrective action in response to an earlier protest. According to GAO, while the terms of the re-evaluation permitted offerors to submit revised price proposals only, revisions to the awardee's staffing costs were so extensive as to constitute technical proposal revisions; therefore, the agency should have permitted all offerors to submit revised technical proposals.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

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....