Partial Termination Doesn't Allow Repricing In Commercial Services Contract
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.26.04
In Individual Dev. Assocs., Inc. (Sept. 9, 2004), the ASBCA rejected a contractor’s claim that the partial termination for convenience of a contract for commercial educational services was improper, holding that various provisions showing the services had been offered only as an “inseparable whole” did not explicitly abrogate the government’s right to partially terminate the contract and, therefore, applied only to offer and acceptance or pricing, not termination. The Board further held that the applicable commercial termination provision (in contrast to the FAR’s standard termination for convenience clause) does not give contractors any right to an equitable adjustment when a partial termination increases the cost of unchanged work.
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
