Federal Circuit Clarifies Prejudice Review In Bid Protest Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.26.05
Explaining away seemingly contradictory precedent, the Federal Circuit in Bannum, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 21, 2005) clarified that, while the merits are reviewed on appeal de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act's "arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law" standard, the determination of whether a violation of law is prejudicial requires fact finding by the Court of Federal Claims and is reviewed for "clear error." Applying the clear error standard to this case, the appellate court found none in the trial court's determination that the violation had not prejudiced the protester.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Is evidence that a company tracked return on investment (ROI) for certain actions and expenses sufficient to prove mens rea and plead a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) with the requisite particularity? A recent decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) suggests that it is.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
