D.C. Circuit Overturns Decision To Release Manufacturing Data Under FOIA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.05.10
In United Technologies Corp. v. DoD, the DC Circuit set aside a DCMA decision to release under FOIA certain Corrective Action Requests (CARs) from DCMA regarding alleged problems with Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney manufacturing processes. Although the court found that the competitive harm that could result from their competitors using that information to discredit Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney in the marketplace is not the type of harm that Exemption 4 was designed to protect, the court nonetheless found that the information was not releasable because DoD had not rebutted Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney's argument that the CARs disclosed proprietary information regarding their manufacturing processes that would allow their competitors to improve their own manufacturing and quality control systems to the competitive detriment of Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney.
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
