CFC Gives CICA Its Bite
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.03.08
In declaring invalid the override of a Competition in Contracting Act stay in Nortel Gov't Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Oct. 10, 2008), a case litigated by C&M, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the government's "urgent and compelling" basis for the override given that it (1) failed to establish the adverse consequences of maintaining the status quo, (2) did not consider whether reasonable alternatives to the override exist, (3) afforded "unacceptably brief treatment" to the potential costs and risks to the government if GAO recommended sustaining the protest, and (4) did not "consider the impact of its override decision on competition at all." The Court also rejected the claim that the override served the "best interests" of the government, finding that a "strong preference" for a "new" or a "more cost effective" contract is insufficient to justify the override.
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
