Contractor Logs Victory in Termination Case at Federal Circuit
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.02.15
In EM Logging v. Department of Agriculture, 2014-1227 (Feb. 20, 2015), the Federal Circuit reversed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Board's conclusion that the US Forest Service had properly terminated a timber sale contract for "flagrant disregard" of the terms of the contract. On appeal, the court found that the record supported only four instances of route deviation, load limit violations, or delayed notifications, and held that the contractor's actions did not justify termination because termination for "flagrant disregard" must be "predicated on more than technical breaches of minor contract provisions or isolated breaches of material contract provisions which caused no damage."
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
