"The New Contract Is Better" Isn't A Justification
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.11.06
The Court of Federal Claims in Advanced Systems Dev., Inc. v. U.S. (July 28, 2006) reinforced that an agency cannot justify the override of a CICA stay while a protest is pending at GAO by packaging reasons that amount to no more than the new contract will be better than the current situation. Moreover, the court rebuffed the agency's attempt to add reasons for the override and make the justification statement an "evolving" document during litigation.
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
