Flawed Pension Cost Decision Is Reversed - But Why?
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.20.08
Last year, the ASBCA held in Raytheon Corp., ASBCA No. 54907, 07-2 BCA 33,655, that contractors are noncompliant with CAS requirements if they do not complete the segment closing adjustment required by CAS 413 for pension costs within the same fiscal year as the segment closing and determined that the interest due on CAS noncompliances is subject to compounding daily. On April 30, 2008, the Board reversed that decision on reconsideration, holding, without explanation, that the Government could not have suffered any damage as a result of the so-called noncompliance, making its prior holding about the calculation of interest moot and, therefore, dicta.
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
