No Buyer's Remorse – ASBCA Orders Air Force to Pay for What It Got
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.15
In Honeywell Int'l, Inc. (Sept. 24, 2015), the ASBCA held that the Air Force must pay for two solar arrays that the contractor (represented by C&M) provided under an Energy Savings Performance Contract, even though the Board had earlier determined that certain of the contract's payment terms were "invalid." In finding the Air Force liable under an implied-in-fact contract theory, the Board rejected arguments that the Air Force had never intended to acquire the solar arrays and that the contracting officers had lacked authority to bind the government, explaining that the Air Force, simply by refusing to accept them, could not escape liability for the arrays that were "supplied … as designed, completed on time, and installed as required."
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
