Separate CAS Noncompliances May Get Separate SOL
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.14
In Appeal of Fluor Corp., the ASBCA held that the government's claim relating to an alleged CAS 403 noncompliance "was a continuing claim inherently susceptible to being broken down into a series of independent distinct events," namely, each payment by the government for a CAS-non-compliant billing. Thus, the board held that, under the CDA's statute of limitations, the government "knew or should have known" that it had a claim against the contractor as of the date the compliance audit was completed (for amounts paid before that date), but that claims for the same alleged CAS noncompliance in subsequent years would not accrue until the amounts at issue for those years had been billed and paid, a result that may save some government claims from the CDA's 6-year SOL (previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here).
Contacts
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
