Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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
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
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
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.