Federal Circuit Affirms Contractor’s $113 Million Award from ASBCA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.16
In another decision in the long-running saga that has bounced between the ASBCA and the courts for twelve years concerning a non-appropriated fund contract under which SUFI installed telephones in Air Force lodgings at bases in Germany (and has been represented by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 29, 2016) rejected DOJ’s “mandate compliance” challenge to the ASBCA’s opinions on remand awarding SUFI more than $113 million in additional damages for multiple breaches of contract committed by the Air Force. The court held that DOJ has no independent right to complain of the Board’s awards accepted by the contractor and, nevertheless, found meritless DOJ’s assertions that the Board had failed to heed the court’s directives, instead affirming the CFC’s dismissal of DOJ’s challenge and its order that DOJ instruct the Air Force to pay SUFI’s award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
