1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA’s FY 2024 Report – Examining the Numbers

ASBCA’s FY 2024 Report – Examining the Numbers

Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.06.25

On October 31, 2024, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) published its FY 2024 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the “adjudication of appeals, petitions for contracting officer final decisions, applications for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and other matters” of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 

The ASBCA disposed of 419 cases in FY 2024, an increase from 375 in FY 2023. The agencies with the most docketed cases were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Navy, which were involved in 71 and 58 cases, respectively. 

In a year that saw the ASBCA resolve 126 cases on the merits, the Board considered issues of claim accrual, improper terminations for default, Contracts Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction, and compensable delay, among others. Crowell stays up to date on cases being decided by the ASBCA, and reports of these cases can be found on our Government Contracts Group’s “Insights” page here. A few of the noteworthy cases include:

Furthermore, the Federal Circuit disposed of nine ASBCA decisions on appeal with seven affirmed, one affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, and one dismissed.

The FY 2024 report also demonstrates that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) remains a successful tool for resolving disputes at the ASBCA. The report indicates that the Board’s ADR program resolved 100% of cases in which the parties completed formal mediation sessions.

The full report can be found here.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....