WHAT: In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a 7-4 en banc decision that the definition of “interested party” under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)) remains...more
Following the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) announcement of a new project review process in May 2025, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) issued the first round of DOE grant terminations under the Trump...more
In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued five noteworthy bid protest decisions: - Percipient.ai Inc. v. U.S. - Oak...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowly interprets the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s bar on task order protests at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, expanding the court’s bid protest jurisdiction. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that cancellation of a patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not a taking and does not grant the patentee any compensable claim against the United...more
Most government contract lawyers are already familiar with the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), which gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over many non-tort claims against the United States, including contract...more
Last week was apparently CFC week at the Federal Circuit, with several precedential decisions in government contracts and Tucker Act cases. Below we give our usual week’s statistics and case of the week—our highly subjective...more
• A potential offeror may have jurisdiction to protest a government insourcing decision at the Court of Federal Claims. • This issue will likely need to be resolved by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ...more