Non-Offeror Has Standing, and FAR Part 12 Commercial Item Restrictions Apply to GSA Schedule Procurements
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.12.15
In CGI Fed. Inc. v. U.S.(Mar. 10, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that CGI was a "prospective offeror" and therefore had standing to pursue its preaward protest, despite the fact that CGI did not submit a proposal, which was due after CGI filed at GAO but before CGI filed at the CFC. The Federal Circuit also reversed the CFC on the merits, holding that the proscription in FAR part 12 of terms that are inconsistent with customary commercial practice does apply to solicitations for orders under FAR 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedule) 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
