Disclosing Fraud by Principals
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.17.16
In ALGESE 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2016), the Court of Federal Claims provided guidance on the terms “principal” and “criminally . . . charged” in the FAR responsibility certification when it enjoined the Navy from proceeding with an award to a company because the Navy should have found it non-responsible upon learning of the corruption and fraud of its parent corporation during a protest of a parallel contract before the GAO. Examining the structure of the company’s family of corporations and conduct, the CFC highlighted that essentially none of the related entities disclosed the many criminal investigations, charges, and convictions in SAM and FAPIIS because the family had “created a new subsidiary in which to dump its criminal liability problems."
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
