Chem Service, Inc. v. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati of EPA
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
12 F.3d 1256 (1993)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Congress enacted the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) to promote national competitiveness by encouraging a transfer of technology from government labs to privately owned labs. The FTTA allowed government labs to enter into cooperative research-and-development agreements (the agreements) with private labs. The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati, operated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant), entered into agreements with several private labs (the private labs) to develop technical reference materials. Chem Service, Inc. (plaintiff), a company that was in the business of producing reference materials, sued the EPA. Chem Service claimed that the decision as to which companies would get to manufacture and distribute reference materials was a procurement contract that should be governed by government-procurement laws rather than the FTTA. Chem Service also claimed the agreements that the EPA and the private labs entered into allowed the private labs to sell EPA-certified products manufactured before the agreements that did not live up to the standards required by the agreements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roth, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Stapleton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.