Novation Trap For The Unwary
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.04.11
In Raytheon Co. v. U.S. (Jan. 26, 2011), the Court of Federal Claims held that a contractor's claim for the pension cost adjustment due under CAS 413 for pension plans with funding deficits at the time of a "segment closing" could be barred by the standard language required in novation agreements providing that the contractor "waives any claims and rights against the Government that it now has or may have in the future in connection with the [novated] contracts." Because the Government takes the position that its agreement to novate contracts is completely within the untrammeled discretion of the Government, the Government could effectively negate the requirements of CAS 413 if this decision is correct by refusing to novate contracts unless the contractor agrees to waive its rights to an adjustment under CAS 413.
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
