DOL Again Applies Expansive Interpretation of "Subcontractor"
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.29.10
In Office of Fed. Contract Compliance Programs v. Fla. Hosp. of Orlando (Oct. 28, 2010), a DOL Administrative Law Judge determined that a hospital providing medical services pursuant to an agreement with a TRICARE-managed care support contractor was a government subcontractor for purposes of a DOL audit of the hospital's compliance with its affirmative action and non-discrimination obligations. As discussed further in our blog, the ALJ analogized the hospital's status in this case to the hospital that provided medical services pursuant to an agreement with an FEHBP contractor in the UPMC Braddock case last year, which is currently under appeal.
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
