DoD Rescinds IR&D "Technical Interchange" Requirement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.04.18
On August 24, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD), issued a final rule that, effective immediately, removes the requirement in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 231.205–18(c)(iii)(C)(4) that major contractors conduct a formal discussion (i.e., “technical interchange”) with a DoD technical staffer prior to generating independent research and development (IR&D) costs for IR&D projects initiated in fiscal year 2017 and later, in order for those costs to be allowable. The requirement applied to major contractors, who are defined as contractors whose covered segments allocated a total of more than $11 million in IR&D and bid proposal costs to covered contracts during the preceding fiscal years. The requirement was repealed after a determination by the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force that the DFARS requirement was unnecessary since the objective of the interchange “can be met through other means.”
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
