Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion arises out of a government contracts case involving an agreement to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. The opinion addresses whether the requirement that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief is a jurisdictional requirement. A companion nonprecedential opinion addresses whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in partially dismissing a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the requirement. Another nonprecedential opinion released today resolves an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the patentability of claims. Each of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
ECC International Constructors, LLC v. Secretary of the Army (Precedential Opinion)
ECC International Constructors, LLC (“ECCI”) appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) dismissing its claim for lack of jurisdiction. The claim stems from a contract the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) awarded ECCI in 2010 to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. In 2014, ECCI filed a claim seeking compensation for construction delays allegedly attributable to the government. After six years of unsuccessful settlement discussions between the government and ECCI, followed by a nine-day hearing on the merits before the Board, the government—three months after the hearing—moved to dismiss ECCI’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to state a “sum certain.” The Board granted the government’s motion. ECCI appeals.
We consider sua sponte whether the requirement (as established by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”)) that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) state a “sum certain”—i.e., specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief—is jurisdictional. For the reasons below, we conclude that the sum-certain requirement is a nonjurisdictional rule subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ECC International Constructors, LLC v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential Opinion)
ECC International Constructors, LLC (“ECCI”) appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) partially dismissing its claim for lack of jurisdiction. ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC, ASBCA No. 59643, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,967 (Nov. 10, 2021). We reverse and remand
* * *
Our holding in the companion appeal compels the same result here. Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s partial dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We remand for the Board to evaluate whether the government forfeited its right to challenge ECCI’s satisfaction of the sum-certain requirement, and, if it did, to consider ECCI’s case on the merits.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corp. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun”) appeals the Final Written Decision of the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) in which Petitioner, Incyte Corporation (“Incyte”), challenged all claims of Sun’s U.S. Patent No. 9,249,149 (“’149 patent”). The Board concluded that the claims were invalid as obvious. Sun sought review by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, which was denied, and then timely filed an appeal to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319. We affirm.