Beware The Cooperative Agreement
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.21.08
In Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. (Apr. 2, 2008), the Federal Circuit held that a contractor who had a cooperative cost sharing agreement for mushroom waste remediation was out of luck when it followed defective government specifications and had to pay third parties close to $1 million for environmental violations. The Federal Circuit denied Rick's claims for indemnification, holding there was no Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction and that the Spearin doctrine, which provides that the government breaches an implied warranty when it supplies a contractor with defective specifications, was inapplicable because there was no procurement contract and because the doctrine does not extend to third-party claims.
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
