COVID-19 Benchmarking Survey for Trade Associations Survey Results
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.30.20
As part of our continuing commitment to help our clients address the effects of COVID-19, we are providing the initial, anonymized, and aggregated results from our benchmarking questionnaire. We continue to gather information and update the responses, but given the rapidly changing environment, we wanted you to have this information sooner than later.
Our teams are working around the clock to address these and other impacts. Please reach out if you need assistance, and above all else, our best wishes for your continued good health.
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
