Lockheed Air., LOCKHEED-GA. Co. Div. v. U.S.

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Rogerson Aircraft Controls

    785 F.2d 296 (Fed. Cir. 1986)

    But that case did not involve understatements intentionally and deliberately made by the contractor, and though the court's language is not absolutely clear we can properly assume that the decision did not cover that situation. Some years later, in Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 485 F.2d 584, 586-87, 202 Ct.Cl. 787 (1973), the Court of Claims carefully avoided, when it unanimously overturned a determination by a Board of Contract Appeals that the understatement in that instance was in fact intentional, any holding that intentional understatements were in the same category (for offset purposes) as unintentional errors. The current Government appeal from a "defective pricing" determination by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board), permitting the appellee contractor to offset its understatements, asks us now to decide directly and broadly that all intentional errors of understatement fall outside the Cutler-Hammer rule.

  2. Technical Dev. Corp. v. United States

    597 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1979)   Cited 8 times
    In Technical Development, the government contract called for the development of an electronic fuel control for an aircraft engine.

    Id. 440 F.2d at 1374-75, 194 Ct.Cl. at 618. In order to establish the close and umbilical connection, required by Technitrol, the defendant must do more than broadly allude to various connections or contracts between an invention and a Government contract. It must supply hard facts to support its position. Cf. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 485 F.2d 584, 202 Ct.Cl. 787 (1973). Where the facts surrounding the development of the invention, the contract language, and the parties' contemporaneous construction of the contract lead to the conclusion that the invention was not within the performance of the contract, no license accrues.