1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |OFCCP Moves To Eliminate Burdensome EO Survey And Offers "Grace Period" For Compliance With Internet Applicant Rule

OFCCP Moves To Eliminate Burdensome EO Survey And Offers "Grace Period" For Compliance With Internet Applicant Rule

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.27.06

On January 20, 2005, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, finally moving to eliminate the burdensome EO Survey -- as the government contracting community has been urging for years. OFCCP is in the process of developing a new system for selecting audit targets.

The OFCCP has also announced that it will not delay implementation of the "Internet Applicant" rule, but will observe a 90-day "grace period." For 90 days following February 6, 2006, OFCCP will not cite a contractor for a purely technical recordkeeping violation for failure to comply with the Internet Applicant final rule, provided that the contractor (1) demonstrates that it is taking reasonable steps to update its systems to comply with the rule, including a projected date of compliance, and (2) collects and maintains records according to the established procedures consistent with OFCCP's recordkeeping requirements that preexisted the Internet Applicant final rule, i.e., 41 CFR 60-1.12.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights