1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CDA Bars Untimely Contractor Claim

CDA Bars Untimely Contractor Claim

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.11.14

In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (ASBCA, Aug. 18), the board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claims arising under a services contract for dining facilities in Iraq due to the CDA's six-year statute of limitations. Notably, the ASBCA rejected the contractor's assertion that claims on a cost-type contract accrue only after the government's refusal to pay the contractor's reimbursement for incurred costs, rather than from the date the contractor knew of the "events[] that fix the alleged liability of ... the Government," and ruled that the contractor's extended negotiations with its subcontractor did not meet the standard for equitable tolling, which is applicable only "in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, or where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.”


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....

View All Insights