T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.12.06
The AGBCA in Ardco, Inc. (Aug. 2, 2006), grounded the government's attempt to resort to the termination for convenience clause to avoid lost profit damages for breach when it wrecked the contractor's aircraft and caused it to lose revenue for part of the contract term. Nor did the government's argument fly that the lack of a contractual guarantee of any further revenue under an IDIQ contract defeats a lost profits claim, as the contractor is free to prove what work it likely would have received as the basis for its breach damages
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
