Inexact IDIQ Exercise = Constructive Change
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.04.09
In General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc. (May 8, 2009), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals converted timely delivery order exercises by the Navy into constructive changes because they were sent by e-mail, when the contract specified that electronic delivery was only authorized if specified in the schedule and it was not. Analogizing to option exercises, the board instructed that an IDIQ order must be issued fully in accord with the contract or it is ineffective.
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
