"Yardstick" Measures Failure to Progress in A-12 Default Termination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.11.07
In the latest opinion in the 16-year A-12 litigation, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, No. 91-1204C (Fed. Cl. May 3, 2007) the Court of Federal Claims, on remand from the Federal Circuit, upheld default termination of the fixed-price research and development contract based upon a failure to make progress -- even though the full contract "had no completion date at [the time of] termination." With no completion date for the full contract, the Court instead used a "yardstick" to measure the contractors' progress, holding that (1) the Court could use a series of interim deadlines for the production of prototype aircraft to define both the "performance required" and the "time remaining for performance"; and (2) at the time of termination, there was sufficient information available for the contracting officer to have concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of delivery under those deadlines (even if the contracting officer did not, in the event, make the default termination decision based upon that "available" information).
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
