Davis-Bacon Violation Leads to FCA Liability
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.16.12
On October 1, the Sixth Circuit in United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC, affirmed a decision imposing FCA liability when a prime had submitted inaccurate or false payroll certifications that did not properly describe work done by its subcontractors and that also contained hourly wages for subcontractor employees that did not meet federal guidelines for prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act. This opinion serves as an important reminder to primes and subcontractors that failure to comply with minimum wage rate requirements may have significant adverse consequences and also suggests that companies that learn of such violations must carefully consider whether mandatory disclosure pursuant to FAR Subpart 9.4 or 52.203-13 is required.
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
