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 | 12.30.25
Are All Baby Products Related? TTAB Says “No”
The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) recently issued a refreshed opinion in the trademark dispute Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, where Naterra International, Inc. petitioned the TTAB to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for the mark BABIES' MAGIC TEA based on its own BABY MAGIC mark. On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the TTAB reconsidered an expert’s opinion about relatedness of goods based on the concept of “umbrella branding” and found that the goods are unrelated and therefore again denied the petition for cancellation.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 12.30.25
Investor Advisory Committee Recommends SEC Disclosure Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.29.25
FYI – GAO Finds Key Person “Available” Despite Accepting Employment with a Different Company
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.29.25
More Than Math: How Desjardins Recognizes AI Innovations as Patent-Eligible Technology
