Technology Replacement Clause Requires Actual Replacement
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.28.10
Some technology contracts have included "replacement" clauses which put limits on the agency's use of its termination for convenience power to flip to another vendor simply to get a better price. The Federal Circuit in McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc. (Sept. 23, 2010), held that, when the agency in such a clause had only agreed not to "replace" the leased software with "functionally similar equipment and/or software" for one year after termination or expiration of the lease, it did not breach when it did not install the leased software and continued to use its prior software.
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
