Nyet: Board Finds Insufficient Evidence to Grant Summary Judgment on SOL Grounds
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.06.16
In Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. (June 16, 2016), the ASBCA denied KBR’s motion for summary judgment regarding two government demands for repayment of alleged overcharges that KBR argued were barred by the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations. Citing Sikorsky, the board held that, even though KBR had presented numerous documents to show that the government was made aware of its challenged practices more than six years before the final decisions, the documents themselves (without more) failed to establish undisputed material facts sufficient to meet the post-Sikorsky burden of proof in light of the government’s opposing evidence.
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.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
