Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the Courts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 02, 2015

Feds Paid $45M to Northrop to Settle Trade Secrets Case

The U.S. government paid $45 million to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. over claims that federal agencies misappropriated trade secrets related to a polar satellite program, this reporter learned through a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The payment, which was made in 2014 and has not been previously reported, was authorized by the Commerce Department on behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The expenditure was listed without identification as a “miscellany” $45 million administrative tort payment in the federal government's Judgment Fund database. Such payments are usually less than $10,000 for claims such as slip and falls. The Judgment Fund entry did not identify the recipient of the payment or list a case number.

Northrop filed an administrative claim against the government in 2011 seeking $332 million in damages for lost profits. The company was the prime contractor on the $10 billion National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, used for civilian and military weather forecasting and tracking. Northrop's responsibilities included the development and production of the satellites and delivery of the environmental data they provided. The company said it relied on its “unique technical know-how, expertise and trade secret information it had developed during over 40 years of satellite work,” according to the complaint.

The program was plagued by delays and cost overruns. The Government Accountability Office, in 2006 U.S. Senate testimony, blamed “issues with subcontractor and contractor performance, program management and executive-level oversight.” In 2010, the government announced it was moving much of the work from the program to the new Joint Polar Satellite System.

Government workers soon began downloading and copying “massive amounts” of Northrop's satellite-related intellectual property, Northrop alleged. That information was used to award contracts to other companies, “using Northrop Grumman IP in the process or disclosing the IP to its [Joint Polar Satellite System] contractors for their consideration and/or use,” Northrop's counsel wrote in 2011 to NASA and NOAA. The rival contractors allegedly included Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Raytheon Co. and ITT Corp.

The extent to which the government has rights to technical data and software developed in connection with a government contract can be a point of contention. Northrop asserted that the contract specified what items the government had limited rights to, and that “nothing in the contract permitted them unilaterally to take possession of materials ' to use as they pleased.”

According to Northrop's complaint, the government said it owned the material at issue. Under the terms of the settlement, the government did not admit liability. ' Jenna Greene, The National Law Journal

'

Feds Paid $45M to Northrop to Settle Trade Secrets Case

The U.S. government paid $45 million to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. over claims that federal agencies misappropriated trade secrets related to a polar satellite program, this reporter learned through a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The payment, which was made in 2014 and has not been previously reported, was authorized by the Commerce Department on behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The expenditure was listed without identification as a “miscellany” $45 million administrative tort payment in the federal government's Judgment Fund database. Such payments are usually less than $10,000 for claims such as slip and falls. The Judgment Fund entry did not identify the recipient of the payment or list a case number.

Northrop filed an administrative claim against the government in 2011 seeking $332 million in damages for lost profits. The company was the prime contractor on the $10 billion National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, used for civilian and military weather forecasting and tracking. Northrop's responsibilities included the development and production of the satellites and delivery of the environmental data they provided. The company said it relied on its “unique technical know-how, expertise and trade secret information it had developed during over 40 years of satellite work,” according to the complaint.

The program was plagued by delays and cost overruns. The Government Accountability Office, in 2006 U.S. Senate testimony, blamed “issues with subcontractor and contractor performance, program management and executive-level oversight.” In 2010, the government announced it was moving much of the work from the program to the new Joint Polar Satellite System.

Government workers soon began downloading and copying “massive amounts” of Northrop's satellite-related intellectual property, Northrop alleged. That information was used to award contracts to other companies, “using Northrop Grumman IP in the process or disclosing the IP to its [Joint Polar Satellite System] contractors for their consideration and/or use,” Northrop's counsel wrote in 2011 to NASA and NOAA. The rival contractors allegedly included Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Raytheon Co. and ITT Corp.

The extent to which the government has rights to technical data and software developed in connection with a government contract can be a point of contention. Northrop asserted that the contract specified what items the government had limited rights to, and that “nothing in the contract permitted them unilaterally to take possession of materials ' to use as they pleased.”

According to Northrop's complaint, the government said it owned the material at issue. Under the terms of the settlement, the government did not admit liability. ' Jenna Greene, The National Law Journal

'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace Image

Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.

Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO Image

This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.

While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum Image

For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.

Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed Image

In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.

From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World Image

Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.