Contractors Must Go The Extra Mile For Preaward Review
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.04.05
In Billington Contracting, Inc. (Feb. 28, 2005), the ASBCA dismissed a contractor's claim for differing site conditions under a dredging contract, because documents with the relevant detail on site conditions were referenced in a contract specification and had been available to the contractor for review. The board brushed aside the contractor's complaint that the relevant records were only identified as available some 750 miles from the project site, stating that a contractor is "bound to seek" out such information.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
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.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.22.24
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.24
GSA Clarifies Permissibility of Upfront Payments for Software-as-a-Service Offerings
