1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Negative Responsibility Determination Overturned

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.02.10

In Bilfinger Berger AG v. U.S. (Nov. 19, 2010), the CFC found that the Army Corps of Engineers had unreasonably relied on the opinion of an Italian lawyer applying Italian law to disqualify an offeror for when the Corps had failed to describe all the relevant situation to the attorney and issued a preliminary injunction stopping all work under the contract. The case is another example of the little deference that the CFC gives GAO opinions, as the GAO had found in the Corps' favor on the same facts, and Judge Sweeney also joins those on the court who have ruled that the jurisdiction under 1491(a)(1) of the court to consider a breach of the implied-in-fact contract to consider a solicitation fairly and consistently with the solicitation is intact after the addition of bid protest jurisdiction in 1491(b)(1) and the Federal Circuit's decision in Resource Conservation Group earlier this year.

Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25

AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use

Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress....