LOC Clause Applies To Each Delivery Order, Not Full Contract
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.04
In Analysas Corp. (May 12, 2004), the ASBCA held that, under an indefinite quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services, the contract’s limitation of cost (“LOC”) clause (which required the contractor to give notice if its costs were expected to exceed 75% of the "estimated cost specified in the Schedule") allowed the government to deny payments to a contractor for costs it incurred in excess of the estimated cost for each delivery order, even though the contractor had not yet exceeded 75% of the maximum total labor hours specified "in the Schedule" for the full contract. The Board reasoned that the contract lacked the “critical provision” of a specific dollar figure "in the Schedule" for the total estimated contract cost, instead allowing for later addition of estimated costs for each delivery order that the government issued.
Contacts
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
