CFC Requires Strict Adherence To FAR’s Data Rights Clause
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.28.04
In what the court characterized as an issue of first impression, the Court of Federal Claims in Ervin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 20, 2004), reviewed the scope of the FAR’s “Rights In Data--General” clause (FAR 52.227-14), holding that, among other things, the contractor failed to protect its technical data with the required restrictive legends and thereby granted the government “unlimited rights” in the data. In rejecting numerous defenses raised by the contractor, the court required strict adherence to the procedural and substantive requirements of the clause, finding that the contractor’s efforts to remedy its deficiencies were “both too little and too late” – a finding that highlights the necessity for contractors to follow such requirements or risk losing valuable rights to proprietary data.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance

