Unduly Restrictive Specification Requires Redo
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.24.15
In Smith and Nephew Inc. (Jan. 2, 2015), publicly released this week, GAO sustained a pre-award solicitation protest alleging that the VA had unduly restricted competition with an unnecessary specification requirement. GAO concluded that the "minimum fluid absorption rate" for medical bandages demanded by the VA was not based on any demonstrable agency need, was predicated on one repudiated test study by a single contractor, and could not be met by any commercially available product in the marketplace.
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
