1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOL Announces New LM-10 Guidance and Extended Filing Deadline

DOL Announces New LM-10 Guidance and Extended Filing Deadline

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.09.06

On March 7, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") issued new guidance on employers' LM-10 reporting requirements in the form of additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) added to the DOL's Advisory and FAQ issued in November 2005.

The DOL's November 2005 Advisory indicated a much more aggressive enforcement posture with respect to LM-10 reporting, but also created a grace period for reporting -- employers who file compliant LM-10 forms within 90 days of the company's 2005 fiscal year will not be penalized for their failure to submit reports for any prior years. The revised FAQ announces that employers whose fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 will now have until May 15, 2006 to file their fiscal year 1005 LM-10s

The revised Advisory and FAQs clarify who must file annual LM-10 reports, provide additional examples of reportable expenditures, and explain how an employer who has no reportable expenditures for the 2005 fiscal year can still take advantage of the grace period. Unionized employers should carefully review the revised FAQ, as well as the underlying statutes and case law in this very complicated area of the law, to determine their reporting requirements and ensure that appropriate processes are in place to track reportable expenditures.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....