Ignorance of The Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.11.09
In what, fortunately, is not a precedential decision, in Teknowledge Corp. v. U.S. (Nov. 3, 2009), the Federal Circuit finds that the cost of software development effort is not allocable to Government business because there is no demonstrated "benefit" to the Government. While it is not clear, based on the facts reported in the decision, that the result would be different -- and as we have reported in a prior Bullet Point about the decision of the Court of Federal Claims in the same case -- neither party apparently pointed out to either court that FAR incorporates the requirements of CAS 420, which specifically addresses the allocation issue in the case and requires a different analysis than the "benefit to the Government" rationale that the courts applied.
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
