Subway Wins Latest Round Of 15-Year Construction Litigation Saga
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.15.05
After 15 years of litigation, two trials and the deaths of two judges, Chief Judge Hogan of the U.S. District Court in D.C. wrote the latest chapter in the subway litigation saga, Mergentime-Perini v. WMATA (11/28/05), issuing a 192-page opinion upholding the default terminations of contracts for two Washington Metro subway stations, denying virtually all of the contractors' claims and awarding WMATA over $21 million in excess reprocurement costs and other damages, plus prejudgment interest. Crowell & Moring has represented WMATA in this protracted litigation, which has already established precedent on such issues as whether performance bonds cover allegedly unauthorized contract modifications and the duties of successor judges who take over an uncompleted case after trial.
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.
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
