Only Significant OCIs Require Mitigation
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.18.10
On August 5, 2010, the Federal Circuit in PAI Corp. v. U.S. affirmed the lower court's determination that contracting officers have an obligation to mitigate "significant" OCIs, but that the FAR does not require "mitigation of other types of conflicts, such as apparent or potential non-significant conflicts." The Federal Circuit also held that contracting officers have broad discretion to determine whether an OCI is "significant" and that FAR 9.504(a) does not require that contracting officers document their initial identification and evaluation of potential conflicts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
