Antitrust Division Update Affirms Continued Efforts of Procurement Collusion Strike Force
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.20
As part of its 2020 Update, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division highlighted the ongoing work of its Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), with Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim specifically noting the work of the PCSF in his personal remarks. Calling the response to the PCSF “overwhelmingly positive”, Delrahim underscored the Division’s priority of enforcing the criminal antitrust laws and stated that the PCSF will be a primary tool for investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Update also reiterated that the interagency partnership has been hard at work in the ten months since its launch, identifying and investigating potential antitrust crimes in public procurements. The Update noted that since its inception in November, the PCSF has conducted more than 30 in-person training presentations in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and its work has continued during the pandemic with PCSF attorneys leading over a dozen interactive virtual training programs for 2,000 criminal investigators, data scientists, and procurement officials from 500 federal, state, and local agencies.
Importantly, the Update reported that DOJ has secured additional funding for the PCSF to support its outreach efforts, as well as its investigations, indicating the Antitrust Division has both the interest and the resources to remain focused on these issues for the foreseeable future.
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
