Implied Terms in Government Contracts Analyzed
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.17.15
The recent edition of the Public Contract Law Journal (Winter 2015) features an article by C&M's Stanfield Johnson entitled, "Hercules, Winstar, and the Supreme Court's Conspicuous and Potentially Consequential Error." The June 2015 issue of the Nash & Cibinic Report (at 34) provides a brief review and recommends that "all lawyers in the field of Government procurement should read" this article on "the role of implied terms" in government contracts.
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
