1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Trust Us: Rescinded Gov't Claims Rendered Appeals Moot, Absent Evidence That Gov't Intends to Reassert

Trust Us: Rescinded Gov't Claims Rendered Appeals Moot, Absent Evidence That Gov't Intends to Reassert

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.19.16

In L-3 Commc’ns (Apr. 25, 2016), the ASBCA dismissed as moot the appeals of two final decisions that the contractor had argued were barred by the CDA statute of limitations when the cognizant ACOs rescinded the final decisions after the contractor had appealed. The board held that, although the COs had not yet agreed to settle the claims or provide any assurance that the claims would not be reasserted in the future, COs are presumed to act in good faith, and, without evidence of contrary intent, there was no reason not to “trust” that the claims will not be reasserted.

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....