1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |More Confusion On What Costs Are Allocable To Government Contracts

More Confusion On What Costs Are Allocable To Government Contracts

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.16.09

In a puzzling decision about what appear to be independent research and development (IR&D) costs associated with creating a new software product, Teknowledge Corp. v. U.S. (Jan. 7, 2009), neither party seems to have cited the relevant allocation and allowability rules in Cost Accounting Standard 420, incorporated by reference in FAR 31.205-18, and the CFC's opinion does not mention them, instead sustaining disallowance of the costs on the ground that they did not "benefit" the government. Under the provisions of CAS 420, IR&D costs of a business unit are generally allocable to the contracts of that business unit, and it is not clear based on the facts as described in the opinion whether the costs at issue were incurred in a commercial business unit, a home office, or a government contracts business unit, so it is impossible to determine whether the costs would have been allocable to and allowable on the contracts of the Government business unit if CAS 420 had been appropriately applied.

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)....