No Out-Of-Pockets, No Interest
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.10.06
The Federal Circuit in Richlin Security Serv. Co. v. Certoff (Jan. 31, 2006) reaffirmed that a contractor can obtain interest on its recovery from the date of the filing of its claim with the contracting officer, even if the amounts recovered had not yet been incurred, as long as the contractor eventually has out-of-pocket expense. This doomed Richlin's interest request, because only the government made out-of-pocket payments for the Service Contract Act deficiencies it claimed.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
