1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

T4C, IDIQ Clauses Are No Safe Harbor Against Breach Damages

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.12.06

The AGBCA in Ardco, Inc. (Aug. 2, 2006), grounded the government's attempt to resort to the termination for convenience clause to avoid lost profit damages for breach when it wrecked the contractor's aircraft and caused it to lose revenue for part of the contract term. Nor did the government's argument fly that the lack of a contractual guarantee of any further revenue under an IDIQ contract defeats a lost profits claim, as the contractor is free to prove what work it likely would have received as the basis for its breach damages

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25

Design Patent Application Drawings & Prosecution History Must Be Clear (Merely Translucent Won’t Suffice!)

Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope)....