1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Collateral Contracts Rule Explained

Collateral Contracts Rule Explained

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.30.05

In Mann v. U.S. (Dec. 7, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims rejected a broad reading of the rule that lost profits are not allowed under contracts collateral to the contract actually breached, explaining that when the lost profits directly relate to the subject of the contract they are recoverable, even if they would have required a transaction with a third party. In this breach of a lease agreement, assuming adequate proof, the contractor is able to recover the lost profits he would have made from releasing the property, as well as certain out-of-pocket costs to improve the property.

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)....