NAICS Challengers at Court Must First Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.27.15
On April 22, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled in Palladian Partners, Inc. v. U.S. that, although the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review challenges to NAICS code decisions made by the SBA's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA), in order for an offeror to challenge such a decision at the court, the offeror had to have participated in the appeal at OHA brought by a different offeror. Here, because the offeror failed to do so, the offeror had not exhausted its administrative remedies, and the case was remanded to be dismissed.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 10.21.26
The life sciences sector is uniquely vulnerable to the inherent risks of AI-generated evidence in drug development and discovery. This client alert focuses on five core challenges: hallucinations, skewed predictions from unrepresentative training data, the opacity of AI reasoning, input sensitivity that undermines reproducibility, and adversarial manipulation of training data. To address these risks, companies should use experimental validation and human oversight as the common legal and regulatory safety net. This entails among other measures auditing AI outputs, characterizing training data, and structural oversight. Companies also should prepare for evolving frameworks and guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union (EU) that address use of AI in drug discovery and development .
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.21.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.21.26
Private Investigations Act Series: Temporal, material and territorial scope
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.21.26
