No PRB Cost Adjustment For Segment Closings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.02.10
In related decisions filed on April 29, the Court of Federal Claims effectively precluded contractors from recovering any costs for unfunded post-retirement benefits (primarily retiree medical and life insurance) in connection with business segment closings, absent a specific contract provision promising to indemnify the contractor for the unfunded liability. In Raytheon v. U.S., the court held that benefits covered by so-called 401(h) subaccounts in the contractor's pension plan (a relatively uncommon situation) are not "pension benefits" and, therefore, are not subject to the segment-closing provisions of CAS 413; in Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S., the court held that pay-as-you-go benefit plans covering retired employees and dependents (by far the more common situation) are not subject to the provisions of CAS 413 requiring "segment closing" adjustments for pension costs.
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
