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 | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
