Interest Due On Indirect Cost Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.21.11
In SRI Int'l (Oct. 5, 2011), the ASBCA addressed for the first time in a comprehensive way the payment of contractor certified claims and Contract Disputes Act interest related to disputes about allowable indirect costs. In clarifying its original decision holding that the indirect costs at issue were allowable, the Board held that recovery of the principal amount of the contractor’s claim must be accomplished through the normal indirect cost rates, not in a lump sum, and that the contractor is entitled to recover interest on the amount due on the principal amounts actually paid beginning on the date the certified claim was submitted until payment of the indirect costs was made on each contract that was covered by the claim, apparently with that interest to be paid separately to the contractor, leaving it to the parties on remand to determine how that separate payment will be accomplished.
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
