1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Timeliness Rule Sinks Ferry’s Protest

New Timeliness Rule Sinks Ferry’s Protest

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.27.07

Navigating in previously uncharted territory before the Federal Circuit, a ferry operator’s protest against award of the National Park Service’s Alcatraz Island concession contract is sunk on the shoals of a new timeliness rule that “a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection afterwards in a § 1491(b) action in the Court of Federal Claims.” In Blue & Gold, Fleet, L.P. v. U.S., (June 26, 2007), the court viewed the protest as a challenge to the terms of the solicitation (i.e., omission of Service Contract Act requirements) and thus affirmed the dismissal of the post-award protest as untimely on diverse theories of waiver, patent ambiguity, laches, and equitable estoppel, coupled with an analogy to the GAO timeliness rules, despite the acknowledged fact that “the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) contains no time limit requiring a solicitation to be challenged before the close of bidding.”

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....