1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Rare Decision about Pricing Interorganizational Transfers

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 | 04.15.26

Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity....

View All Insights