CAS Offsets Permitted Among Different Contract Types
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.14.06
In an important case of first impression, the Court of Federal Claims in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2006) has held that the cost impact of a Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) noncompliance is the net of all increased costs and all decreased costs that result from the noncompliance on all CAS-covered contracts. The Court rejected the government's argument that decreased costs paid on fixed-price contracts could not be offset against increased costs paid on cost-reimbursement contracts, finding that it "is -- in a word -- wrong."
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
