The Confusing World of Compensation Caps
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.13.14
As a result of the confusing, inconsistent, and in some cases unenforceable changes made in the cost allowability rules setting caps on compensation costs in recent months, it is difficult to determine what rules apply to some contracts. We prepared the attached chart, which we hope will be useful, summarizing our understanding of the various sets of regulatory and statutory provisions that are likely to be applicable to currently active contracts as a tool for deciding how many alternative indirect cost submissions could be required.
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
