Ode to Boilerplate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.02.14
In DMS Imaging Inc. v. U.S. (CFC Apr. 30, 2014), a boilerplate severability clause may have saved the contractor's claim for damages after equipment it leased to the government was destroyed. The government argued that the contractor's standard lease terms, expressly incorporated into the contract with the government, were invalid because they included an indemnification clause alleged to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, but the CFC found the government liable for damages to the equipment under a separate, risk-of-loss clause, which was not invalidated because, even if the indemnification clause were unenforceable, a third boilerplate provision provided that unenforceable or void provisions would be deemed severable.
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
