Subcontract Unenforceable When Violates SBA Requirements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.30.10
In Morris-Griffin Corp. v. C & L Servs. Corp. (Aug. 16, 2010), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that a subcontract between a small business prime contractor and its large business subcontractor was unenforceable because it violated the SBA's size regulations and limitations on subcontracting. After finding that the two companies were affiliated and that the large business subcontractor was seeking to enforce a subcontract under which it was entitled to greater than 50% of the costs incurred for personnel, the court concluded that the prime had falsely certified that it was a small business and that its contract awarded under an 8(a) set-aside had been "conceived in fraud," noting further that such set-asides "are susceptible to finagling."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
