Tech Bundling Justified For Emergency Situations
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.02.09
In CHE Consulting, Inc. v. U.S. (Dec. 30, 2008), the Federal Circuit upheld the Navy's bundling of hardware and software maintenance for a complex computer system under an FSS buy. While many agencies buy these separately and GSA initially declined to bundle in this instance, the court upheld the Navy's rationale that it could not afford the time to analyze the source of equipment problems or the risk that two different maintenance contractors would be pointing at each other about who was responsible for fixing the problem, given the time-critical information it provided to the fleet in emergency situations.
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
