Prime Pulls Rug Out From Under Subcontractor Appeal
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.08.14
The ASBCA's dismissal of an appeal in Binghamton Simulator Co. provides a stark reminder that subcontractors generally do not have privity of contract with the government and therefore cannot appeal contracting officer final decisions – even those that directly affect the sub's rights – unless that appeal is in the name of the prime and with the prime's consent and cooperation. The substantive dispute in this appeal related to the extent of government rights in software provided by Binghamton, and Binghamton had a provision in its subcontract that may have required the prime to sponsor the appeal, but the ASBCA held these were irrelevant because the prime refused to confirm its sponsorship of the appeal to the Board.
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
