Limitation of Funds Clause Puts Bite in Termination Recovery
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.30.13
In The Boeing Co. (Dec. 3, 2013), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals served a reminder of the risks Limitation of Funds (LOF) clauses pose for contractors, who normally must assure that funding on their contracts will be adequate not only for work underway but also for recovery of prime and subcontract costs in the event of a termination for convenience. The Board refused to allow recovery of costs incurred in excess of the funded amounts, holding that, if the contractor incurred costs in excess of the allotted funding, "it was a volunteer and did so for its own account."
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
