Who Knew? Limitations Defense Kept in Play Against U.S.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.23.12
In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims found there to be triable issues of fact with regard to the contractor's statute of limitations defense as to when the government's claim accrued, i.e., when the government "knew or should have known" of alleged CAS 418 noncompliance. This case follows a series of similar recent cases at the CFC and the ASBCA and raises the issue of who in the government needs to have notice of a claim for it to accrue -- a contracting officer or "other responsible actors" such as DCAA auditors -- a question the court declined to resolve "[a]t this early juncture" in the proceedings.
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
