1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CORRECTION: Congress to Vote on Radically Altering CFC's Bid Protest Timeliness Rules

CORRECTION: Congress to Vote on Radically Altering CFC's Bid Protest Timeliness Rules

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.15.12

Yesterday we erroneously reported that a provision to amend the Tucker Act with respect to the timeliness rules of Court of Federal Claims protests had been included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act reported by the House Armed Services Committee. We have learned that this proposed legislation from the Department of Defense was ultimately not included in the bill, as reported, perhaps because such amendments to Title 28 of the U.S. Code are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but we will continue to track this proposed legislation.

May.14.2012

REVISED -- see above. Late last week, the House Armed Services Committee passed a committee mark version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that includes a provision that would amend the Tucker Act to adopt all of the GAO's timeliness rules for bid protests. If the bill is signed into law in its current form, protesters would no longer be able to file Court of Federal Claims bid protests after an unsuccessful effort at the GAO, but would be required to select one forum or the other.

Click here for a more detailed analysis of this proposed legislation at our government contracts blog, The Government Contracts Legal Forum.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....