Animus Unnecessary for Improper Termination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.13
In a decision that catalogued and continued the confusion in the Federal Circuit's case law concerning when a termination for convenience may be challenged as improper and, thus, give rise to breach damages, the CFC in Tigerswan, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 2, 2013) rebuffed the government's position that, to prevail, the contractor must always show a specific intent to harm the contractor. It then ruled that the contractor could not show a breach of good faith duties because the contract contained a termination clause, but then also ruled that actionable bad faith is shown if the government has engaged in improper self-dealing (which tracks the Restatement's definition of breach of good faith duties).
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
