Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.30.09
Reversing the ASBCA decision, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,793 (2008), the Federal Circuit holds in Winter v. FloorPro, Inc. (June 26, 2009), that the ASBCA does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by third-party beneficiaries, because they are not "contractors" under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit distinguishes its prior holding that the Court of Federal Claims does have jurisdiction to hear claims by third-party beneficiaries, observing that jurisdiction granted to the CFC under the Tucker Act is ";broader than the Board's jurisdiction under the CDA."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.30.25
Are All Baby Products Related? TTAB Says “No”
The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) recently issued a refreshed opinion in the trademark dispute Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, where Naterra International, Inc. petitioned the TTAB to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for the mark BABIES' MAGIC TEA based on its own BABY MAGIC mark. On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the TTAB reconsidered an expert’s opinion about relatedness of goods based on the concept of “umbrella branding” and found that the goods are unrelated and therefore again denied the petition for cancellation.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 12.30.25
Investor Advisory Committee Recommends SEC Disclosure Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.29.25
FYI – GAO Finds Key Person “Available” Despite Accepting Employment with a Different Company
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.29.25
More Than Math: How Desjardins Recognizes AI Innovations as Patent-Eligible Technology
