IR&D Definition Clarified
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.19.10
In a decision that should resolve finally nearly 40 years of disagreement between contractors and the government about the definition of Independent Research and Development (IR&D), the Federal Circuit has held in ATK Thiokol Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 19, 2010), that R&D effort must be "specifically required" by the terms of a contract in order to be excluded from the definition of allowable IR&D costs, endorsing the contractors' argument that effort that is "implicitly" required in order to perform the contract or "necessary" to perform but not explicitly required by the contract is allowable IR&D. In addition, and perhaps even more important, the decision acknowledges more generally in its analysis of the distinction between direct and indirect costs that "CAS 402 gives the contractor considerable freedom in the classification of particular costs, so long as the contractor maintains consistency in making that determination."
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
