Federal Circuit Compounds Contractors' Interest Problems
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.04.11
Over the vigorous dissent by several judges, the Federal Circuit on March 1, 2011, denied a petition for en banc review of its decision in Gates v. Raytheon, 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which held that, because the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) statute requires interest on cost impacts for CAS violations to be calculated at the rate established under 26 U.S.C. § 6621, the interest must be compounded in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6622, even though the CAS statute does not refer to or incorporate § 6622 by reference. As we reported on September 24, 2010, the same interest rate is referenced in the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), and a proposal is pending to amend the FAR to require compound, rather than simple, interest to be used in calculating damages for TINA violations.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
