United States Marine, Inc. v. United States
722 F.3d 1360
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- USM sued the United States in the ED La under the FTCA for misappropriation of Mark V trade secrets arising from Navy disclosures to Maine Marine contractors.
- Mark V design developed by USM and VT Halter (VT Halter later a Trinity unit) under contract-like relationships; DFARS limited rights legend restricted government use/disclosure.
- Navy awarded VT Halter development contracts in 1993; prototypes built; Mark V aluminum hull chosen for production in 1994; design data marked with Limited Rights Legend.
- Between 2004–2006 the Navy disclosed Mark V drawings to Maine Marine Manufacturing contractors under a Navy grant, without VT Halter/USM consent.
- District court found Navy misappropriated trade secrets; damages awarded around $1.45 million as a reasonable royalty; Fifth Circuit held lack of FTCA jurisdiction over related counterclaims and remanded to the Claims Court for transfer.
- This court reviews the transfer decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(A); discusses whether the FTCA or Tucker Act governs and whether the transfer was proper in light of sovereign immunity and forum policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA vs Tucker Act jurisdiction over USM's claim | USM's claim is FTCA-based and district court has jurisdiction. | Claim arises from contract duties; exclusive jurisdiction lies in the Claims Court under the Tucker Act. | Transfer affirmed; district court lacked exclusive jurisdiction; Claims Court has jurisdiction. |
| Whether Woodbury lineage bars FTCA claim or permits Tucker Act remedy | USM may have a meaningful Tucker Act remedy (contract-based), preserving recovery. | Woodbury line governs; contract-based liability belongs in Claims Court; FTCA remedy not available to recover under contract. | Court allows possibility of Tucker Act remedy and takings theory; transfer remains appropriate. |
| Effect of transfer on USM’s remedies and law-of-the-case implications | Transfer should preserve potential contract-based recovery and/or takings claims in the Claims Court. | Transfer forecloses FTCA tort claims and limits forum-specific recovery; uniformity and sovereign-immunity concerns favor transfer. | Transfer upheld; Claims Court jurisdiction may provide meaningful remedies; law-of-the-case supports affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodbury v. United States, 313 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1963) (contract-based liability may belong to Claims Court)
- Davis v. United States, 961 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1991) (predicates FTCA tort claims on contract breach; dismissible for lack of jurisdiction)
- Wood v. United States, 961 F.2d 195 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (primary contract-based grievance dictates Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Awad v. United States, 301 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (transfer appropriate when tort claims depend on contract terms)
- Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (tort claims against government generally outside Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Gibbons v. United States, 9 U.S. 1 (1868) (statutory limits on jurisdiction over tort claims against government)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for non-contract sources of law)
- Bormes v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (Tucker Act’s scope for claims founded on Constitution/contract)
- Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (takings and related forum considerations under Tucker Act)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (Takings Clause and government-compensation concepts)
- Hohri v. United States, 482 U.S. 64 (1987) (Tucker Act exclusivity and forum construction principles)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (2007) (jurisdictional thresholds for Tucker Act claims; eligibility to recover)