Presolicitation Statements Not Dispositive Of Whether Mod Is Beyond Scope
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.28.05
An agency's presolicitation statement that it did not initially intend a contract to include certain work did not bar the agency from later adding that work, according to the Court of Federal Claims in HDM Corp. v. United States (Dec. 14, 2005). Whether a contract was amended beyond its scope depends upon the breadth of the stated objectives of the solicitation, whether bidders were told that work could be added, and the nature of the added work, so early agency statements are not dispositive, the court held in this case successfully litigated by Crowell & Moring.
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
