Federal Government Will Not Enforce the Contractor Vaccine Mandate Absent Further Notice
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.01.22
On August 31, 2022, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force announced that the Federal Government “will take no action to implement or enforce Executive Order 14042,” the contractor vaccine mandate, “to ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation.”
This announcement follows the decision issued on August 26, 2022 by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to limit the scope of the nationwide injunction issued by the District Court in Georgia v. Biden, S.D. Ga., 1:21-cv-163. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit limited the nationwide injunction to the parties in Georgia, which include seven states and their agencies (Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia), as well as members of the Associated Builders and Contractors.
In light of this announcement, federal contractors should expect that the FAR clause implementing the requirements of the Executive Order will not be included in future solicitations and contracts, and the Federal Government will not take any action to enforce the clause where it has already been included in contracts or contract-like instruments, absent further written notice from the agency.
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
