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 | 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
