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 | 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
