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 | 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
