1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SDB Preference Constitutional

SDB Preference Constitutional

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.02.04

In Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def. (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2004), the district court found that, although the initial enactments of a small disadvantaged business preference in DOD procurements were unconstitutional, in the 2003 version Congress sufficiently heeded the Supreme Court's affirmative action decisions in the past few years and supplied a "strong basis in the evidence" of racial discrimination to support the reenactment of the preference and withstand a facial challenge. The court brushed aside the evidence that the Asian-Americans benefited by the preference in the particular procurement were financially well off, noting that such evidence is only relevant to an administrative challenge to the SDB designation, not a constitutional challenge.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24

From the Highchair to the Courtroom: Federal Circuit Serves Up Helpful Guidance on Equitable Defenses in Childproof Placemat Patent Dispute

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation....

View All Insights