DoD's Guerilla War on IR&D
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.10.16
In a notice published in the Federal Register on February 8 that will almost certainly be unpopular with contractors and their customers, DoD asked for comments on its consideration of adding a requirement to the DFARS that would "require offerors to describe in detail the nature and value of prospective IR&D projects on which the offeror would rely to perform the resultant contract." As described in the notice, that information would be used by DoD to "evaluate proposals in a manner that would take into account that reliance by adjusting the total evaluated price to the Government, for evaluation purposes only, to include the value of related future IR&D projects," presumably by increasing the evaluated price of that offeror's proposal to include the full value of the IR&D project.
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
