Absent Formal Elimination, Offerors Have Standing to Pursue Size Protests
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.16
In granting an appeal filed by Crowell & Moring, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals overturned an underlying area office decision dismissing a company’s challenge to the eligibility of an awardee in a DoE set-aside procurement. Rejecting the area office’s grounds that the company “would not have a reasonable chance” to be selected for award even if it prevailed in its size protest, OHA held that the company had standing to protest because its low technical ratings did not render its proposal unacceptable and the agency had made no finding that it was otherwise ineligible for award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
