1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |"Should Have Known" Standard Applied to CDA Statute of Limitations

"Should Have Known" Standard Applied to CDA Statute of Limitations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.13

In what seems likely to be a major landmark in the evolving interpretation of the CDA statute of limitations, the ASBCA has held that the statute began to run in 1999, when a DCMA price analyst had all the information the government needed to recognize that it had a claim for an alleged CAS violation, even though the responsible CO may not have been aware of the claim until an audit report was issued in 2006. The ASBCA held that, in the absence of any evidence of trickery or concealment, the government "should have known" that it had a claim based on the contractor's 1999 cost proposal that appeared to be inconsistent with its disclosed accounting practice and that the government could not unilaterally extend the statute of limitations by failing to perform an audit that put the CO on actual notice that there might be a claim.


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)....

View All Insights