Recently in Contract Law Category

In plaintiff's post-award bid protest case against the Department of the Air Force (agency) for awarding a billion-dollar-plus contract to Boeing for long-term maintenance on the Air Force's fleet of KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft, judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed and the injunction against proceeding with the contract awarded to Boeing is vacated as the agency's price-realism analysis based on the set work package was not arbitrary and capricious, and the trial court's contrary determination was not within the court's scope of review under the APA standard. 

Read Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. US, No. 09-5021

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before Newman, Plager,  and Moore, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Plager

Counsel

For Appellant:  David R. Hazelton, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.

For Appellee:  Douglas K. Mickle, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

In plaintiff's case against defendants arising from a patent license agreement dispute, judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's subsidiaries are not licensed under the parties' patent licensing Agreement; and 2) the unambiguous Agreement makes clear that the license grant includes subsidiaries of plaintiff and defendant that meet the Agreement's Subsidiary definition.     

Read Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V., No. 09-1208

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

Decided November 3, 2009

Judges

Before Bryson and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges, and St. Eve, District Judge

Opinion by:  St. Eve, District Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ronald J. Schutz, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP; Scott M. Flaherty, David P. Swenson

For Appellee:  Marc De Leeuw, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Gerrard R. Beeney, Adam R. Brebner; Albert L. Hogan III; Allan M. Soobert

In plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against the U.S. government arising from the savings and loan crisis of the early 1980s, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims summarily awarding plaintiffs restitution damages is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded where: 1) government's challenge to the restitution award of $17 million for plaintiffs' capital contribution is rejected; 2) trial court erred in including, as part of the restitution award, the sale premium; 3) trial court erred by not reducing the award by $4.287 million, the value of the tax benefits plaintiffs received; and 4) trial court did not err in offsetting plaintiffs' award with the government's $3 million cash contribution. 

Read Republic Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. US, No. 08-5075

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided October 21, 2009

Judges

Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Schall, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Clevenger, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Christopher T. Handman, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, DC.

For Appellee:  Jeanne E. Davidson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

In plaintiffs' case involving claims that defendant-federal government failed to provide the quantities of water that it agreed to make available under contract, trial court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) trial court's determination with regard to the government's defense that Reclamation had implicit authority to reallocate the water in response to a change in law and policy is reversed as this was not a valid defense on the record; 2) trial court's determination with regard to the Government's defense that the shortages were the result of causes beyond the control of the United States such as to absolve it under the contract provisions is reversed as this was not a valid defense; 3) with regard to the sovereign acts doctrine defense, the trial court was correct in determining that defense unavailing; 4) trial court's dismissal of the takings claim is vacated as plaintiffs are free to pursue their takings claim if they so choose with regard to the years for which the government has been found not liable as a matter of contract law; and 5) regarding the breach of contract claim, the case is remanded for a determination of damages for the years for which the government was liable. 

Read Stockton E. Water Dist. v. US, No. 07-5142

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 30, 2009

Judges

Before Newman, Plager, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Plager, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Jennifer L. Spaletta, Herum Crabtree Brown

For Appellee: Kathryn E Kovacs, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice

In plaintiffs' breach of contract case against United States, acting through the FDIC, the Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed in part, revered in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed as to jurisdiction, liability, and the assessment of damages for lost value in the amount of $276 million, net of the receivership deficit, and with an appropriate tax gross-up; 2) judgments as to the award of $67 million in non-overlapping restitution damages and as cumulative the award of wounded bank damages of $28 million are reversed; and 3) dismissal of intervenors' claims relating to the liquidation surplus is reversed and remanded.   

Read Slattery v. US, No. 07-5063

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 29, 2009

Judges

Before Newman, Gajarsa, Circuit Judges, and Ward, District Judge

Opinion by Newman, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Thomas M. Buchanan, Winston & Strawn, LLP; Bradley P. Smith, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

For Appellee:  Jeanne E. Davidson,  Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice. 

In plaintiffs' Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims against the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals' dismissal of several of plaintiffs' contract claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part as the six-year presentment period is subject to equitable tolling under section 605(a) of the CDA, but the class action tolling does not apply to the claims at issue.   

Read Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, No. 08-1532

Appeal from:  Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

Decided September 29, 2009

Judges

Before Lourie, Mayer, and Bryson, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Bryson, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Lloyd B. Miller, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP; Geoffrey D. Strommer, Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP

For Appellee:  Robert E. Chandler, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice

In a patent infringement and breach of nondisclosure agreement (NDA), involving patents directed toward apparatuses and methods of creating and verifying authenticity of documents such as postage, district court's judgment is vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the judgment of noninfringement is vacated as the district court erred in construing the claims; and 2) district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim is reversed as there are material issues of fact in dispute regarding breach of the NDA due to misuse of the confidential information.     

Read Kara Tech., Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc., No. 09-1027

Appeal from:  United States District Court for the Central District of California

Decided September 24, 2009

Judges

Before Schall, Plager, and Moore, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Moore, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Eliot D. Williams, Baker Bolts LLP, Of New York, Robert C. Scheinfeld

For Appellee:  Phillip J. Graves, Graves Law Office, PC

In a Winstar-related case, judgment by the court of federal claims holding that the government's enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) breached the government's contractual promise to allow favorable accounting treatment of supervisory goodwill is reversed and remanded as the government lacked the requisite intent to enter into a contract with plaintiff regarding treatment of goodwill to be generated by plaintiff's conversion, no contract was formed, and thus, there was no breach.     

Read 1st Home Liquidating Trust v. US, No. 08-5050

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 22, 2009

Judges

Before Mayer, Gajarsa, and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Jerry Stouck, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For Appellee:  Kenneth M. Dintzer, Associate Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice. 

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' ruling that defendant was not required to pay interest to the government for a potential violation of Cost Accounting Standard 413, 48 C.F.R. section 9904.413 (CAS 413), is reversed and remanded as defendant's failure to pay the government in the accounting period required by CAS 413 necessarily resulted in increased costs to the government. Therefore, defendant is liable to the government for compound interest under the CAS clause.

Read Gates v. Raytheon Co. , No. 08-1543

Appeal from:  Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

Decided September 14, 2009

Judges

Before Mayer, Lourie and Gajarsa, CIrcuit Judges. 
Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  C. Coleman Bird, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Jeanne E. Davidson, DIrector, and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director.  

For Appellee:  Karen L. Manos, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Christyne K. Brennan and Dace A. Caldwell. 

In a class action suit brought by landowners against the Bureau of Reclamation involving contracts authorizing landowners to use stored groundwater, dismissal on the merits is affirmed where: 1) the word "term" in the plaintiffs' contract refers to the designated 10-year term set forth in the contracts and does not include any periods of renewal following that initial 10-year term; 2) plaintiffs' contracts are not long-term contracts within the meaning of the 1939 Act, 43 U.S.C. section 485h-3 and are therefore not entitled to the benefits accorded to such contracts under section 485h-1; 3) plaintiffs' argument that their contracts are "repayment contracts" is rejected as it is contrary to section 9(e); and 4) plaintiffs are not entitled to the statutory benefits accorded to repayment contracts and long term 9(e) contracts under the 1939 and 1956 Acts, and because those benefits turn on whether the plaintiffs' contracts include a principal repayment obligation or have a contract term greater than 10 years, it is sufficient to note that the Reclamation Reform Act and the pre-1986 excess land limitations do not change the fact that the plaintiffs hold short-term 9(e) contracts.       

Read Grant County Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 08-1354

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Decided September 2, 2009

Judges

Before Schall, Bryson, and Linn, CIrcuit Judges. 
Opinion by Bryson, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant: Ronald Ady, Christensen Law Group, L.P., of Salt Lake City, Utah

For Appellees: Allen M. Brabender, Trial Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC