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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
