Board Clarifies that Claim Accrual Contains Implicit "Reasonableness" Standard
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.07.17
In Sparton DeLeon Springs, LLC (ASBCA No. 60416, May 18, 2017), the Board denied the government’s request for reconsideration of an earlier Board decision, which had rejected the government’s claim for recoupment of alleged overpayments of direct costs as time-barred by the CDA's six-year statute of limitations (previously discussed in a blog post). In support of this reconsideration decision, and in response to the government’s argument that "the Board applied the wrong legal standard for determining whether the claim had accrued," the Board explained that it saw "no conceptual difference between the 'should have been known' standard set forth in [FAR] 33.201" and "the phrase 'reasonably should have known' recited by the government" because "the one expresses only what the other implies."
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
