DFARS Deviation Removes “Technical Interchange” Requirement for IR&D Cost Allowability
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.25.17
On September 14, 2017, the Department of Defense issued a Class Deviation waiving the requirement for “major contractors” to “engage in” and “document” a “technical interchange” with DoD as a prerequisite to making costs for IR&D projects allowable (previously discussed here and here). This deviation is “effective until it is incorporated in the DFARS” or otherwise rescinded. While it is certainly good news for contractors, it does not impact the portion of the rule requiring contractors to report at least annually IR&D projects to DTIC as a condition of allowability
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
