ASBCA Dismisses "Conclusory" and "Unsupported" $100M Government Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.17
In Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (ASBCA Dec. 20, 2016), a case involving a $100 million breach of contract claim stemming from purportedly unallowable direct subcontractor costs, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion to dismiss the Army’s claim "for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted," concluding that the government had "gone forward with a claim for over $100,000,000…based on nothing more than a plainly invalid legal theory." Specifically, the Board held that final decisions based solely on an audit report’s "conclusory assertions" and "unsupported conclusions" failed to satisfy the standards required by the Board’s rules for a valid claim and that although prime contractors have a generalized responsibility to manage subcontractors, the Army failed to establish that Lockheed Martin had breached any particular contractual obligation, express or implied, and specifically that Lockheed Martin had no obligation to (1) obtain or audit incurred cost submissions from subcontractors; or (2) to retain documentation supporting prime contractor billings for longer than the contract’s "applicable records retention" period.
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
