NAFI Contractor Wins over $100 Million In Wunderlich Act Review of ASBCA Decision
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.16.12
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc, v. U.S. (Nov. 8, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims granted SUFI, represented by C&M, a judgment of over $100 million pursuant to a rare Wunderlich Act review of the ASBCA's damages determinations on several breach of contract claims brought in the aftermath of a telephone services contract with the Air Force's Non-Appropriated Fund Purchasing Office. Central to the court's decision to increase SUFI's recovery was its finding that the board had misapplied the burden of proof with respect to damages, seemingly ruling "in every possible way to cut back SUFI's damages" on claims for which liability was established while ignoring the willfulness of the Air Force's breaches and the clear fact of damage to SUFI on this "totally botched program of grand proportions."
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
