1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Section 809 Panel Releases Volume 1 Report and Recommendations

Section 809 Panel Releases Volume 1 Report and Recommendations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.06.18

In the FY2016 NDAA, Congress created the “Section 809 Panel” to review and streamline DoD acquisition regulations to “improv[e] the efficiency and effectiveness of the defense acquisition process and maintain defense technology advantage.” On January 31, the Panel released its Volume 1 Report, which includes recommendations on a number of topics, such as commercial buying, contract compliance and audit, defense business systems, and services and small business contracting. (The Panel’s Volume 2 and 3 Reports will be released in June 2018 and January 2019, respectively.)

   


Many of the Panel’s recommendations are deep in the legislative and regulatory weeds, but could have far reaching effects—e.g., implementing a single definition of “subcontractor” to replace the 27 different definitions currently scattered throughout various statutes and regulations; bifurcating commercial items into commercial products and commercial services; etc. The full Volume 1 Report is worth a read for those interested in (and impacted by) DoD acquisition reform.


We will also be providing further analysis on our blog in the coming weeks.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

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....