Rare Decision about Pricing Interorganizational Transfers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.14.17
In rare litigation over the pricing of items transferred between a contractor’s commonly controlled subdivisions, C&M successfully appealed a Contracting Officer’s refusal to pay commercial prices for materials a contractor had transferred between its business units. In A-T Solutions, Inc. (ATS), ASBCA No. 59338, the Board found that ATS was permitted to transfer at price under FAR 31.205-26(e) because it had demonstrated an “established practice” of pricing interorganizational transfers at other than cost for commercial work, as evidenced by records and the testimony of ATS’ witnesses and accounting expert. The Board rejected the Government’s argument that ATS’ internal transfers lacked “economic substance,” holding that FAR 31.205-26(e) does not impose any “economic substance” requirement and that ATS’ internal transfers were adequately recorded at price, notwithstanding limitations in the detail provided by ATS’ accounting software.
Contacts
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
