Recently in Contract Law Category

We love fresh fish.

Ideally, we would purchase all of our fish from an ocean-side fishmonger, but most of the time that's not in the cards. Instead, we have to go to restaurants. While the restaurant arguably involves less hassle, it presents a financial obstacle: the market price. We feel awkward asking waiters about the market price, and we usually either choose a lesser fish with a noted price, or cross our fingers that we haven't blown our rent on a single meal.

After reading this week's Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, we now realize that we simply need to befriend a Federal Circuit judge or a federal trade employee for future fish-dining outings, because they are well-versed in fish pricing.

Nuclear waste is a pain in the reactor.

With that in mind, the federal enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) almost 30 years ago to authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with nuclear plant utilities to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in return for the utilities paying into a Nuclear Waste Fund.

It was under this plan that in June 1983, the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into the “Standard Contract,” with Southern California Edison (SCE) for the acceptance of spent nuclear fuel produced at SCE’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

Issue of standing in patent infringement action

WiAV Solutions, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 10-1266, concerned a challenge to the district court's decision that plaintiff lacked constitutional standing to assert the Mindspeed patents against the defendants because several third parties have a limited right to license, in a patent infringement suit related to signal transmission, as well as encoding and decoding of data.

Finding of Liability Against the Government For Breach of Contract in a Winstar Case Reversed

Holland v. US, 09-5095, concerned a challenge to the the Court of Federal Claims' holding that the government is liable for breach of contract, in a Winstar case.  In reversing, the court held that the plaintiffs' release of all claims against the FDIC as manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF) in the settlement agreement effected a release of all claims against co-obligor, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).  The court also held that, alternatively, plaintiffs' accord and satisfaction with the FDIC as manager of the FRF in the settlement agreement discharged the OTS.

Related Link:

• Read the Federal Circuit's Full Decision in Holland v. US, 09-5095

McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., 09-1536, concerned a challenge to a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals holding that the government breached a non-substitution clause of a delivery order awarded to plaintiff (an authorized software reseller and licensor under a blanket purchase agreement between Oracle Corporation and the Army's Information Technology E. Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center).  In reversing the Board of Contract Appeals' decision, the court held that, under a proper interpretation of the contract, the government did not replace the contracted-for software following the termination of its contract with plaintiff, and hence did not breach the contract.

Related Resource:

• Full text of McHugh v. DLT Solutions, Inc., 09-1536

Tri-Star Elec. Int'l, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Durtal, SA, 09-1337, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1), in a patent infringement suit.  In affirming, the court held that the assignment transferred ownership to Tri-Star of California and thus, the Tri-Star Delaware corporation has standing to bring this suit.

PAI Corp. v. US, 10-5003, involved a plaintiff's bid protest case challenging the government's award of a support services contract to Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC (ITP) by the Department of Energy's Office of Secure Transportation, claiming that the contracting officer's organizational conflict of interest created an advantage to ITP over other bidders.  In affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of the government, the court held that the contracting officer fully complied with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) requirements.  Also, the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any significant potential conflict that provided ITP with an unfair competitive advantage during the procurement.

M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. US, No. 09-5024, concerned a challenge to the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract suit against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and granting the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages, arising from a contract awarded by the Navy to replace windows and a roof at a Naval warehouse building.

In affirming the judgment, the court held that the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff did not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of a claim against the government for contract modification under the CDA.  The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the government on its counterclaim for liquidated damages as the court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for time extensions and because plaintiff's extension claim was the only defense asserted against the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages.     

Related Resource:

• Full text of M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. US

In Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, LLC, No. 09-1473, the Federal Circuit addressed plaintiff's challenge to the decision of the U.S. P.T.O., Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an opposition to a trademark application. 

Plaintiff, a producer of food items such as sausages and breakfast sandwiches, argued that defendant's new mark depicting a farm boy, resembled its registered mark and would likely cause prospective consumers to be confused.  In affirming the decision, the court concluded that under DuPont factors, there were sufficient distinctions between the registered marks such as, the size and shape of the boys' hands and feet, shape and size of their hats, and the fact that the defendant's boy has a piece of straw in his mouth and is wearing shoes while plaintiff's boy has neither. 

In ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. US, No. 09-5036, the court faced a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims' decision that Development Effort costs for plaintiff's upgraded rocket motor were chargeable as indirect independent research and development (IR&D) costs.  In affirming the decision, the court concluded that it was proper for plaintiff to treat its Development Effort costs as indirect costs as the costs were related to a contract with Mitsubishi, but not specifically required by that contract.

 Related Resources:

• Full text of Odom's Tennessee Pride Sausage, Inc. v. FF Acquisition, LLC
• Full text of ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. US