CFC Rejects Taxes Clause as Basis for Recovering Environmental Remediation Costs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.25.13
On January 13, the Court of Federal Claims in Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. held (1) the government was not liable for CERCLA environmental cleanup costs under the "Taxes" clause in certain World War II-era contracts; and (2) even if the "Taxes" clause had provided for indemnification, any indemnification rights were not preserved after contract termination. The "Taxes" clause and the absence of a reservation of rights to pursue indemnification in Shell is in contrast with the explicit "hold harmless" clauses in the facilities contracts cases in which the contractor reserved its rights to pursue indemnification (Ford and DuPont) and indemnification clauses authorized under Public Law 85-804, which contain explicit post-contract termination provisions.
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
