The Dockworkers’ Strike and Safeguarding Your Rights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.03.24
At midnight on October 1, 2024, the International Longshoremen’s Association launched a labor strike that effectively shut down all ports from Maine to Texas after being unable to reach agreement on terms for a new labor contract with the United States Maritime Alliance. This strike may impact virtually all industries that rely on maritime shipping, either directly or indirectly.
Government contractors should be cognizant of their rights since shipping delays resulting from the strike could affect their performance. If a contract incorporates FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays, or one of the FAR Default clauses, such as FAR 52.249-8, Default (Fixed-Price Supply and Service), then delays that are attributable to the dockworkers’ strike should be excusable, and contract performance times extended. However, if the delay is attributable to a subcontractor whose performance is impacted by the dockworkers’ strike, then a prime contractor may need to consider the possibility of procuring supplies from an alternative supplier. Contractors should use their best efforts to timely notify their respective contracting officers of any performance impacts and request additional time to perform, as well as document any directions they receive from the contracting officer.
The FAR’s Excusable Delay clause and the Default clauses do not address monetary relief for excusable delays. However, certain circumstances may change the calculus, such as where the government does not grant extensions when appropriate, or when certain warranties made by the government were breached as a result of the strike. Thus, it is important to provide notice to the government in the event of delays caused by the strike, and it is worthwhile in any notice of impact to the government to reserve the right to seek an equitable adjustment for cost and schedule impacts, as applicable.
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
