31-Month Suspension of Affiliates Violates FAR
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.06.12
In Agility Def. and Gov't Servs. (June 26), an Alabama District Court rejected the government's assertion that an agency's suspension of a government contractor is beyond judicial review and overturned the suspensions because they had exceeded 18 months, in violation of FAR 9.407-4(b). The two plaintiffs were suspended in November 2009 based on their affiliation with an indicted contractor, Public Warehousing Company, and, although the initial suspension of the affiliates was proper, the agency could not extend the suspensions of the affiliates beyond 18 months because legal proceedings had not been initiated against the affiliates themselves.
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.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
