Curing Claim Certification Defects No Longer Limited to Technical Defects
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.20
In DAI Global, LLC, FKA Development Alternatives, Inc. v. U.S. (Dec. 27, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’s dismissal of five defectively-certified claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Board had dismissed the claims because their certification bore no resemblance to the required statutory language, thereby rendering the claims unsalvageable. On appeal, the Federal Circuit focused on the plain language of the Contract Disputes Act in holding “that § 7103(b)(3) does not limit [certification] defects to those that are technical in nature nor does it limit a contractor’s right to correct a defect if the initial certification was made with ‘intentional, reckless, or negligent disregard for the applicable certification requirements.’” Although contractors should continue to be diligent in properly certifying their claims when appropriate, this decision eliminates the distinction between defective and technically-defective certifications for the purpose of perfecting jurisdiction.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 10 min read | 03.19.26
[1] In a recent development, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability due to being a computer program “as such.” In doing so, the Court set out the framework of a new test for the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use when evaluating the patentability of computer. The ruling breaks down barriers to the patenting of AI algorithms in the UK and paves the way for a wider change in the UK IPO’s approach to assessing excluded subject matter.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.19.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.18.26
CFTC Takes Additional Steps Toward Prediction Market Regulation: What You Need to Know
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.18.26




