Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Federal Circuit Opinion Highlights Risks of IP Rights in Government Contracts
In a case that should serve as a warning to firms with active intellectual property development programs and that have, or aspire to have, the federal government as a customer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that a government contractor that failed to properly disclose an invention developed pursuant to a government contract forfeited title and all rights to the invention and its related patent. See Campbell Plastics Eng'g & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee, No. 03-1512, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 23502 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2004). The case demonstrated the government's willingness to seek, and ability to obtain, the particularly harsh remedy of forfeiture.
Although the Federal Circuit's decision in Campbell Plastics addresses the issue of patentable inventions, it also highlights the need to follow the government contract requirements related to technical data and computer software (regardless of whether the data or software is patented or patentable). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) contains specific provisions describing what a company must do to protect its IP rights. The Campbell Plastics decision highlights that if a company fails to comply strictly with the FAR requirements, it risks surrendering substantial IP rights to the government. These IP rights go beyond the context of patentable inventions. For example, the FAR contains provisions covering software even if not patented or patentable. While this article focuses on the Campbell decision and its interpretation of the FAR Patent Rights clause, it is important to note that a government contractor is exposed to IP risk beyond that set forth in this particular context.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.