Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20828
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- This is an appeal from a Federal Circuit ruling on § 1500 preclusion, comparing claims in the CFC and in the prior district court action.
- FISMA (2002) creates a framework for federal information security; agencies may use commercial products to meet FISMA obligations.
- Trusted Integration supplied the TrustedAgent product; DOJ licensed it for internal use in CSAM under a joint COE submission to OMB.
- DOJ participated with Trusted Integration in COE bid demonstrations and representations; DOJ later developed its own alternative to TrustedAgent and ceased offering it in CSAM.
- DOJ allegedly disparaged TrustedAgent while still advertising it as integral to CSAM; in 2007 DOJ decided to use its own alternative.
- Trusted filed a district court complaint (DC) in May 2009 with three claims for $15M; then filed a CFC complaint in Nov 2009 with three different counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts I and III barred by § 1500? | Counts I/III arise from the same operative facts as the district court claims. | Counts I/III are barred because they rest on the same dispute and facts as the district court action. | Counts I and III are barred by § 1500. |
| Is Count II barred by § 1500 despite the district court claims? | Count II rests on the distinct license agreement and separate contract. | Count II arises from the same operative facts as district court claims. | Count II is not barred by § 1500; jurisdiction exists. |
| Should Keene/Tohono-style tests govern whether claims share operative facts? | Operative facts linkage should be analyzed to bar under § 1500. | Different contracts separate the claims; § 1500 should bar only if same operative facts. | Court applies Keene/Tohono framework; Count II does not share substantially the same operative facts as district court claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court 1993) (same-claim/overlap focus for § 1500; different legal theories do not defeat preclusion)
- United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (Supreme Court 2011) (two suits precluded if based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of relief)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc preclusion principles; overlapping operative facts bar parallel suits)
- Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1876) (early res judicata principles illustrating separate contracts block preclusion analysis)