Strong Mitigating Factors Trump Debarment
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.30.07
In Canales v. Paulson (D.D.C. July 16, 2007, https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1330-47), the federal district court overturned a Treasury Department debarment from government contracting on the ground that the debarring official did not explain reasons for debarment in the face of strong mitigating factors (spotless record before the offense; five years since the incident; extensive business with the government in the interim; misdemeanor conviction) presented to him at the debarment proceeding.
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
