Teaming Agreements: Date or Marriage?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.16.13
In Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Information Experts, Inc. (E.D.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), the district court, based on "plain meaning," dismissed the sub's claim for breach of a teaming agreement by the prime for failure to subcontract with it after the award of a prime contract, holding that the subcontract provisions in the teaming agreement were "unenforceable agreements to agree" because the teaming agreement merely described the sub's scope of work as 49 percent of the functions and work in the prime contract, did not include subcontract terms, and provided for termination of the teaming agreement if the parties could not agree on a subcontract after good faith negotiations. This decision confirms that precise drafting of teaming agreements can make the difference between an unenforceable date and an enforceable marriage.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 10.21.26
The life sciences sector is uniquely vulnerable to the inherent risks of AI-generated evidence in drug development and discovery. This client alert focuses on five core challenges: hallucinations, skewed predictions from unrepresentative training data, the opacity of AI reasoning, input sensitivity that undermines reproducibility, and adversarial manipulation of training data. To address these risks, companies should use experimental validation and human oversight as the common legal and regulatory safety net. This entails among other measures auditing AI outputs, characterizing training data, and structural oversight. Companies also should prepare for evolving frameworks and guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union (EU) that address use of AI in drug discovery and development .
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.21.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.21.26
Private Investigations Act Series: Temporal, material and territorial scope
Client Alert | 7 min read | 10.21.26
