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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
