DCAA's Use of a Statistically Invalid Analysis for Testing Compensation Reasonableness
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.03.12
The ASBCA in J.F. Taylor, Inc. (Jan. 18, 2012) rejected DCAA’s disallowance of executive compensation, based primarily on the credibility of differing expert opinions. The board concluded that the standard DCAA analysis relying on a “rule of reason” that permits compensation within 10% of the 50th percentile of an unweighted average of multiple surveys with different sample sizes is statistically invalid, at least in part because the contractor’s expert was credible and the government’s, who had included in his resume what was arguably a mail order PhD from a South African “university,” was not.
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
