Relying on a Parent's Experience and Resources in Your Proposal? Some Explanation Required
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.21.16
In Deloitte Consulting, LLP (Nov. 16, 2015), GAO disapproved of the agency crediting a subsidiary with the experience of its corporate parent when the subsidiary's proposal said little more than it receives substantial support from the parent and did not identify which resources and experiences related to which entity. GAO also ruled that, merely because the corporate parent novated to its subsidiary the Federal Supply Schedule contract and blanket purchase agreement under which the contract was awarded, it did not mean that the subsidiary "successor in interest" necessarily had the same resources or experience as its predecessor.
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
