NRO Prohibits Exclusive Teaming Agreements
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.09.04
The National Reconaissance Office has adopted a clause prohibiting offerors on NRO procurements from entering into exclusive teaming agreements, based upon a determination that "such arrangements unduly limit competition." N15.209-70(i), prescribing N52.215-020, "Exclusive Teaming Prohibition (May 2004)." By contrast, having received comments that it could have the effect of impairing legitimate, pro-competitive teaming arrangements, DOD in April 2002 withdrew a proposed DFAR that would have required contracting personnel to refer to the Justice Department exclusive teaming agreements that they considered to be "anti-competitive," finding that there was no demonstrated need for such a regulation.
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
