Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves a breach of contract action brought by socially disadvantaged farmers against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding Farm Service Agency (FSA) loans. The plaintiffs, Lester Bonner and Princess Williams, claimed that the USDA breached an express or implied-in-fact contract by failing to provide debt relief after the Inflation Reduction Act repealed a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that mandated such relief.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the formation of a contract, as they failed to demonstrate mutuality of intent, lack of ambiguity in offer and acceptance, consideration, and a government representative with actual authority to bind the United States.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege mutuality of intent to contract, which is a threshold condition for contract formation. The court found that the language of ARPA § 1005, which directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide payments, did not create a contractual obligation. The court also determined that the FSA-2601 form, which informed recipients of their eligibility for payment, did not demonstrate the government's intent to contract. The court concluded that the statutory grant of payment under ARPA was a gratuity and not a contractual right. Consequently, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "BOYD v. US " on Justia Law

In 2008, the plaintiff, ams-OSRAM USA Inc. (formerly Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. or TAOS), sued Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (formerly Intersil Corporation) in the Eastern District of Texas. TAOS alleged patent infringement and state-law claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of a confidentiality agreement related to ambient-light sensors. The patent claim is no longer at issue. TAOS claimed that Intersil used confidential information disclosed during merger discussions to develop competing products.The district court entered a judgment in 2015 based on a jury verdict, awarding TAOS damages for trade secret misappropriation but not for breach of contract, deeming the latter duplicative. In 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed Intersil’s liability for trade secret misappropriation on a narrower basis, vacated the monetary award, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also vacated the judgment denying contract damages as duplicative.On remand, the district court held additional proceedings, including a new jury trial. The court awarded TAOS $8,546,000 in disgorged profits for trade secret misappropriation, $17,092,000 in exemplary damages, and reasonable royalties for breach of contract totaling $6,637,693. The court also awarded prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings on the trade secret and contract claims, including the disgorgement and exemplary damages awards. However, the court reversed the finding that the trade secret became properly accessible in January 2006, determining the correct date to be February 28, 2005. The court affirmed the 26-month head-start period and the inclusion of profits from sales to Apple for the iPod Touch in the disgorgement award. The court vacated the prejudgment interest awards and remanded for further consideration of the appropriate accrual dates for interest on sales occurring after the complaint was filed. View "AMS-OSRAM USA INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. " on Justia Law

Associated Energy Group, LLC (AEG) initiated multiple bid protests concerning contracts managed by the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency Energy (DLA) to deliver fuel to a U.S. military base and nearby airfield in Djibouti. This appeal concerns whether AEG has standing to bring its second bid protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, challenging a one-year sole-source bridge contract awarded to the incumbent contractor. AEG argued that officials within the Djiboutian Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources were preventing contract performance by threatening AEG’s contracted fuel delivery truck drivers and refusing to issue or renew petroleum activity licenses (PALs) to AEG and its contractors.The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed AEG’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that AEG lacked both Article III constitutional standing and Tucker Act statutory standing to challenge the sole-source bridge contract awarded to United Capital Investments Group, Inc. (UCIG). The Claims Court found that neither AEG nor its contractors possessed the required PAL, making AEG ineligible to bid on the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal. The court held that AEG lacked Article III standing because it could not bid on or compete for the bridge contract due to the lack of a PAL. Additionally, the court found that AEG lacked statutory standing under the Tucker Act, as it did not have a substantial chance of winning the contract even if the alleged errors by DLA were corrected. The court concluded that an exception to mootness applied to the case, but AEG’s inability to secure the required PAL meant it had no concrete stake in the lawsuit. View "ASSOCIATED ENERGY GROUP, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

FlightSafety International Inc. (FlightSafety) supplied the U.S. Air Force with commercial technical data under subcontracts awarded by CymSTAR, LLC. The data included restrictive markings, which the Air Force challenged. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) determined that the restrictive markings were improper under applicable statutes and regulations, leading FlightSafety to appeal.The Board found that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety on the technical data were improper. The Board concluded that the government had unrestricted rights to the data, as it was necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (OMIT data). The Board also determined that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the government had unrestricted rights to the OMIT data and that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety contradicted these rights. The court also held that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data. The court found that the restrictive markings, including the terms "proprietary" and "confidential," as well as the requirement for written authorization, were impermissible as they contradicted the government's unrestricted rights. The court also found that the copyright notice in the markings was misleading and contradicted the government's rights. View "FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. v. AIR FORCE " on Justia Law

In 1957, Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, providing indemnity for contractors and others involved in nuclear activities. The PAA mandated that the government indemnify contractors and other "persons indemnified" for public liability arising from nuclear incidents. In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) entered into an indemnity agreement with Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, which processed uranium for the government. Cotter Corporation later purchased radioactive materials from Mallinckrodt and was sued in 2012 by plaintiffs alleging harm from these materials.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Cotter's claim for indemnification under the PAA and the indemnity agreement, ruling that Cotter was not entitled to indemnification because its activities did not arise out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt. The court also dismissed Cotter's contract claim, concluding that Cotter lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and failed to state a claim for breach of contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the Claims Court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that Cotter's liability for the nuclear incident plausibly arose out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt, as the materials causing the incident were produced under the contract. The court also found that Cotter sufficiently alleged it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the indemnity agreement and that the government breached the contract by not indemnifying Cotter. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COTTER CORP., N.S.L. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves 27-35 Jackson Avenue LLC ("Jackson"), the owner of a New York City office building, which leased two floors to the United States government for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Field Office. The lease, starting in May 2009, included a clause allowing termination if the premises were rendered untenantable by fire or other casualty, as determined by the government. In January 2015, a burst sprinkler head caused extensive water damage, leading the government to vacate the premises and eventually terminate the lease, citing untenantability.The United States Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that the government did not breach the lease agreement. The court held that the government’s determination of untenantability was within its discretion and was not made in bad faith. Jackson's claim that the government acted unreasonably and in bad faith was rejected, as the court found no evidence to support these allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the government’s determination of untenantability was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The court emphasized that the lease explicitly allowed the government to make this determination. Additionally, the court found that Jackson failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that the government acted within its contractual rights and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the government. View "27-35 JACKSON AVE LLC v. US " on Justia Law

CKY, Inc. entered into a fixed-price construction contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 2012. CKY encountered unexpected conditions, including heavy rainfall and undisclosed culverts, which led to additional expenses. CKY sought compensation for these expenses, but the Corps denied the requests. CKY then filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking $1,146,226 for the additional costs incurred. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) ruled in favor of CKY regarding the undisclosed culverts but denied compensation for other claims.The Board awarded CKY $185,000 plus interest for the expenses related to the undisclosed culverts. CKY then applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Board granted the application, concluding that the government’s position regarding the undisclosed culverts was not substantially justified. The Board limited its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position on the specific claim where CKY prevailed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Board erred by categorically narrowing its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position and to the specific claim on which CKY prevailed. The court emphasized that the substantial-justification inquiry should consider both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position, and should treat the case as an inclusive whole rather than focusing on individual claims. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without the categorical limitations previously applied. View "In Re SECRETARY OF THE ARMY " on Justia Law

In 2014, due to severe drought conditions, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was unable to meet its water delivery obligations to both the Exchange Contractors and the Friant Contractors under the Central Valley Project (CVP). Reclamation prioritized delivering water to the Exchange Contractors, including water from the San Joaquin River, which resulted in a near-zero allocation to the Friant Contractors. The Friant Contractors and individual growers sued the United States, alleging breach of contract and takings without just compensation.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Friant Growers' breach of contract claims for lack of standing and dismissed the takings claims for lack of a property interest. The court granted summary judgment to the government on the Friant Contractors' breach of contract claims, concluding that the Exchange Contractors' rights under the Exchange Contract were superior and that Reclamation's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Exchange Contract allowed Reclamation to deliver San Joaquin River water to the Exchange Contractors when necessary, and that the government did not breach the Friant Contract by doing so. The court also found that the government was immune from liability under the Friant Contract because its actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claims, concluding that the Friant Contractors and Growers did not have a property interest in the water delivered by Reclamation under California law. View "CITY OF FRESNO v. US " on Justia Law

The United States Department of the Navy issued a solicitation requesting technical support for its electromagnetic spectrum resources, requiring proposals to be submitted via email by a specified deadline. eSimplicity, Inc. submitted its proposal before the deadline, but it was not received by the Contracting Officer due to the email exceeding the maximum file size and being bounced back. The Navy deemed eSimplicity's proposal untimely and did not consider it.eSimplicity filed a pre-award bid protest with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Claims Court ruled in favor of eSimplicity, concluding that the file size was an unstated evaluation criterion and that the government control exception could apply to electronically submitted proposals. The court remanded the case for the Navy to reconsider its decision or to take other actions consistent with the court's opinion. Subsequently, the Navy issued an amended solicitation and awarded the contract to eSimplicity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot because the original solicitation had expired, and the contract had been awarded under a new solicitation. The court found that there was no longer a live controversy, as the issues presented on appeal concerned the now-expired solicitation. The court also rejected the government's argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, noting that the government had other opportunities to appeal similar issues in the past but chose not to do so. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the municipality of Anchorage and the United States regarding two agreements related to the improvement of the Port of Alaska. In 2003, Anchorage and the United States, through the Maritime Administration (MARAD), signed a Memorandum of Understanding (2003 Memorandum) to upgrade and expand the port. In 2011, they signed a Memorandum of Agreement (2011 Memorandum) to address issues that arose during the project, including large-scale damage discovered in 2010.The United States Court of Federal Claims held that the United States breached the 2003 Memorandum by failing to deliver a defect-free port and the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without consulting Anchorage. The court awarded Anchorage $367,446,809 in damages, including $11,279,059 related to the settlement of subcontractor claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2003 Memorandum did not require the United States to deliver a defect-free port, as it lacked specific terms such as what was to be built, where, dimensions, deadlines, and costs. The court vacated the Court of Federal Claims' decision regarding the 2003 Memorandum and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' decision that the United States breached the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without conferring with Anchorage. The court upheld the award of $11,279,059 in damages to Anchorage for this breach. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further consideration consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinion. View "ANCHORAGE v. US " on Justia Law