Parent's No-Debarment Agreement Doesn't Stop CO Finding Sub Lacks Integrity
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.21.08
In OSG Product Tankers, LLC v. U.S. (June 30, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims held that a CO could disqualify a contractor as not "presently responsible" due to lack of integrity because the contractor's parent had pled guilty to a number of felonies, despite an agency settlement agreement with the parent ruling out the parent's debarment as long as it complied with its plea agreement. According to the court, the debarment settlement involving the parent did not estop the CO's independent non-responsibility decision regarding the subsidiary, even though the lack of integrity finding was based on the actions of the parent.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
