COFC Reverses Another Cica Stay Override
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
Although the protester’s incumbent contract (and the 6-month extension) had expired, in Keeton Corrections, Inc. v. U.S., (March 17, 2004), the Court of Federal Claims rejected as arbitrary and capricious an override decision that was premised on the purported necessity of using the awarded contract to deliver necessary correctional services to the Bureau of Prisons. The court found that the agency had not explained why sole source purchase orders could not be used to obtain the necessary services pending GAO’s protest decision, and held that such sole source orders (issued either to the protester or the awardee) would be permissible under the circumstances, and would be less harmful to competition than an override of the CICA stay.
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
