US Liable for Environmental Remediation Costs Under Contract Clauses
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.04.11
On October 31, the Court of Federal Claims in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. U.S. held that the government was liable for environmental cleanup costs because it had breached the “Taxes” clause in three World War II-era contracts under which the government had agreed to pay “any new or additional . . . charges” required by federal, state, or local law “by reason of the production, manufacture, sale or delivery” of aviation gasoline. Exxon continues the trend of recovery of environmental remediation costs under government contracts and is consistent with ongoing efforts to recover environmental remediation costs and toxic tort litigation defense costs under Public Law 85-804 indemnification provisions in Cold War-era contracts being conducted for clients by C&M.
Contacts
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
