Court Tackles Hubzone Issues In Two Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.05
In Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 4, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims, after finding it has jurisdiction to review a SBA protest decision of a bidder's HUBZone qualification, decided that the SBA had appropriately found the bidder qualified because its "principal office" (which was in a HUBZone) was different from its headquarters (which was not). In Manson Construction Co. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2005), the court validated award to the second-low bidder which won because of application of the HUBZone preference, while also upholding the agency's revision of its internal estimate that brought the contractor within the "zone" of permissible cost.
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
