Federal Circuit Compounds Contractors' Interest Problems
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.04.11
Over the vigorous dissent by several judges, the Federal Circuit on March 1, 2011, denied a petition for en banc review of its decision in Gates v. Raytheon, 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which held that, because the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) statute requires interest on cost impacts for CAS violations to be calculated at the rate established under 26 U.S.C. § 6621, the interest must be compounded in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6622, even though the CAS statute does not refer to or incorporate § 6622 by reference. As we reported on September 24, 2010, the same interest rate is referenced in the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), and a proposal is pending to amend the FAR to require compound, rather than simple, interest to be used in calculating damages for TINA violations.
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
