Failure to Consider CAS Materiality Criteria Dooms Gov’t Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.10.16
In Raytheon Co. (ASBCA Aug. 9, 2016), a case involving disallowed cost increases following voluntary accounting changes, the board ruled that the CO violated FAR 30.602 and abused her discretion by considering only the amount of the dollar impact of the accounting changes and, thus, “fail[ed] to analyze the materiality of the cost impacts at issue” pursuant to the criteria set out in CAS 9903.305. Noting (without deciding) that a cost impact of less than 0.005 percent across affected contracts (roughly $142 per contract) might not be “material,” the board held that the government cannot recover on its claim when the CO “simply disregard[s],” rather than evaluates, the CAS materiality factors.
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
