B&P Costs Plus Injunctive Relief Permitted
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.24.09
The CFC in Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. U.S. (Feb. 3, 2009) rejected the government's argument that, once the court has granted injunctive relief, any request for bid preparation costs must be denied. The court ruled that the statute has no "choose one only" provision, and, when the contractor can show that B&P efforts were wasted due to agency error, it should receive reimbursement for them even though it also is awarded injunctive relief.
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
