1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Stick to the Plan!: Anticipated March 2013 SBA Final Rule

Stick to the Plan!: Anticipated March 2013 SBA Final Rule

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.14.13

On January 8, the SBA disclosed its plan to issue a final rule in March to implement several requirements of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-240) related to "covered contracts" for which a small business subcontracting plan is required (currently, construction contracts in excess of $1.5 million or other contracts exceeding $650,000). The rule, which has undergone two comment periods (76 Fed. Reg. 61626 and 76 Fed. Reg. 74749), is intended to allow the funding agency to monitor a prime's small business subcontracting more closely and to encourage it to meet its subcontracting plan through regulation to include: a requirement that the prime represent that it will make good faith efforts to award subcontracts to small businesses at the same percentage as indicated in its plan and, if the percentage is not met, a written justification and explanation to the CO for the failure; a requirement that the prime notify the CO if it pays a reduced price to a subcontractor; and the ability for the funding agency to establish goals at the individual order level for multi-agency, FSS, MAS, and IDIQ contracts.


Contacts

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....

View All Insights