Strict Application Of Micro-Purchase Exception Sinks Award
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.15.10
In Rapiscan Sys., Inc. (Mar. 15, 2009), a case handled by C&M, GAO sustained a protest of the award of a purchase order under a Federal Supply Schedule ("FSS") solicitation when the awardee's FSS contract did not include one of the solicitation's required line items. Although the awardee priced the non-FSS item at $0, GAO concluded that the micro-purchase exception did not apply, because the vendor's quotation also stated that the non-FSS item's price (which exceeded the $3,000 micro-purchase threshold) was included in the price of an FSS item.
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
