The FAR overhaul has not changed the central patent-rights bargain for federally funded inventions. The governing statutory framework remains Bayh-Dole and 37 C.F.R. Part 401. In the FAR Council’s current Part 27 model text, the principal patent clauses—including FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights—Ownership by the Contractor, and FAR 52.227-13, Patent Rights—Ownership by the Government—were retained without text changes. The same is true of the key patent-infringement clauses: Auth

Key employees often have access to valuable customer lists, pricing models, product roadmaps, and technical know-how. Much of this is the company's confidential information. At least some of this, if valuable and properly maintained, may also be trade secrets. So what happens when these key employees leave the company? The right answer is not panic or a boilerplate exit interview that nobody takes seriously. A departure should trigger a consistent process designed to protect

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., 608 U.S. ___ (2026), is not simply another skinny-label case. For patent litigators, its larger significance is evidentiary. The decision forces a sharper distinction between three concepts that often blur together in induced-infringement cases: knowledge of infringement, commercial benefit from infringement, and affirmative conduct that encourages infringement. Only the third proves i

When litigation is filed outside a lawyer’s home jurisdiction, local counsel is often brought in because the rules require it. Someone admitted in the forum may need to sponsor admission, appear on the pleadings, receive court notices, and help ensure compliance with local procedures. That practical role matters. But local counsel can also provide useful perspective beyond the formal requirements of admission and filing. That practical role has become more important in a liti