1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Department of Labor Institutes New Pilot Program to Expedite Processing of Discretionary Suspensions and Debarments

Department of Labor Institutes New Pilot Program to Expedite Processing of Discretionary Suspensions and Debarments

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.04.19

On April 2, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new pilot program for discretionary suspensions and debarments in an effort to decrease DOL’s processing time of these actions “from months to days.” As part of the program, DOL’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) will include in its referrals to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) information based on indictments or convictions, with the hope that such information will allow OASAM to process these actions more quickly. Because of the unique nature of DOL debarments – which are largely imposed as a collateral consequence of labor violations – the pilot program increases risk to government contractors under scrutiny by DOL and its components/programs. This development emphasizes the importance of hiring counsel with capabilities to address the full spectrum of risks, including a proactive approach to suspension and debarment defense. 

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)....