Punctilious Performance Required For Recovery
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.04.05
Ignoring that the government's own failure to have drawings ready so that performance could begin made the contractor's failure to have a required certificate of insurance immaterial, the Federal Circuit in Singleton Contracting Corp. v. Harvey (Jan. 26, 2005) found concurrent cause for delay and denied delay damages to the contractor. The lesson for contractors is to meet all of your contract requirements that you reasonably can, even when the circumstances may seem to make them superfluous.
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
