The Long Tail Of Government Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.26.04
In the latest in a series of appellate decision concerning the Government's liability to reimburse contractors under World War II cost-reimbursement contracts for their liability to clean up environmental contamination, the Federal Circuit in Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. (Aug. 10, 2004) has upheld the contractor's reservation of the right to recover costs that were first incurred nearly 50 years after the contract was completed and "settled." The Court's broad reading of a provision reserving the contractor's right to indemnification for "[c]laims of the Contractor against the Government which are based upon responsibility of the Contractor to Third parties . . . and which involve costs reimbursable under the Contract . . . but which are not now known to the Officers, Directors, or other personnel of the Contractor whose duties include the acquisition of such knowledge" and a definition of reimbursable costs that included "loss or destruction of or damage to property as may arise out of or in connection with the performance of the work under this contract" suggests that most World War II-era contractors facing liability for environmental remediation will be entitled to indemnification under contractual provisions that were then standard in closing out war contracts.
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
