Agencies Abuse Sole-Source Process
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.20.13
On the heels of the CFC in Innovation Dev. Enters. of Am., Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 29, 2013) finding that the Air Force had done zero advance planning before improperly justifying retention of the multiyear incumbent on a sole-source basis, the GAO issued its study faulting DOD more generally. In reviewing eight large sole-source awards, GAO found that DOD in six of them had failed to adhere to the recently tightened FAR requirements for sole-source buys.
Contacts
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
