Board Sustains Lockheed Martin’s $131 Million Cumulative Impact Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.05.24
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program. The underlying contract related to the modernization of a fleet of C-5 Galaxy Aircraft, which is the largest U.S. military transport plane and has provided heavy intercontinental strategic airlift capabilities since the 1970s. The Board sustained the appeal after finding that Lockheed Martin had met its burden of proof on entitlement and quantum, using the measured-mile methodology, which compares an affected period of performance with an unaffected period. This case is a prime example of marshalling fact and expert witness testimony, and documentary evidence, to demonstrate the impacts of cumulative disruption on performance to justify causation and damages.
The Board previously issued decisions addressing release, the statute of limitations, and laches, as well as written discovery.
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
