1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Termination Clause Trumps Cost-Sharing

Termination Clause Trumps Cost-Sharing

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.23.06

The Federal Circuit in Jacobs Eng'g Group, Inc. v. U.S. (Jan. 19, 2006) had before it the interesting scenario of the government terminating a contract with an 80/20 cost share and the contractor insisting that it should get "all" its costs under the termination for convenience clause, not just 80% per the cost share. The court agreed, because the cost share had not been specifically incorporated in the termination clause and the termination had deprived the contractor of his compensating benefit for taking the cost share in the first place, patent rights in the finished work.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.26.26

pH, Prosecution History Estoppel, and Patent Scope: Three Lessons from the Federal Circuit's Latest Hatch-Waxman Ruling

On May 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of no infringement in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-1641. The decision offers important guidance for patent holders and generic manufacturers on the role of industry standards in interpreting scientific terminology during claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and the disclosure-dedication rule....