1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period

Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.22

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) held that the contractor’s claim, seeking recovery for impacts of over-and-above repair work during contract performance, was timely filed under the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations—rejecting an Air Force Motion for Summary Judgment and granting cross-motions filed on behalf of Lockheed Martin.  Recognizing that a contractor’s claim cannot accrue before the events that fix the liability of the government, the Board held Lockheed Martin’s claim did not have a single accrual date but, rather, multiple accrual dates based upon when the government approved each repair.  The Board separately held that those government approvals represented “the type of single-topic . . . yet repeated and distinct events” making Lockheed Martin’s claims timely under the well-recognized “continuing claim doctrine.”

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)....