Parent's No-Debarment Agreement Doesn't Stop CO Finding Sub Lacks Integrity
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.21.08
In OSG Product Tankers, LLC v. U.S. (June 30, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims held that a CO could disqualify a contractor as not "presently responsible" due to lack of integrity because the contractor's parent had pled guilty to a number of felonies, despite an agency settlement agreement with the parent ruling out the parent's debarment as long as it complied with its plea agreement. According to the court, the debarment settlement involving the parent did not estop the CO's independent non-responsibility decision regarding the subsidiary, even though the lack of integrity finding was based on the actions of the parent.
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
