FN Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States

No. 98-447 C., 42 Fed. Cl. 87 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

FN Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 98-447 C., 42 Fed. Cl. 87 (1998)

Facts

The government (defendant) entered into a licensing agreement with Colt’s Manufacturing Company (Colt’s) to use the technical data for the M16 rifle in competitive procurement contracts. The government’s use was limited to contracts involving the manufacture and delivery of the M16 rifle or M16 parts. FN Manufacturing, Inc. (FNM) (plaintiff) was a principal contractor manufacturing M16s for the government. After entering into the licensing agreement, Colt’s developed the M4 carbine, a compact rifle, which was based off the M16. Colt’s allegedly used its own funds to develop the M4. Initially, because the M4 was derived from the M16, Colt’s and the government agreed that the M4 was covered by the existing M16 licensing agreement. Subsequently, the Navy issued a competitive solicitation involving an unauthorized use of M4 technical data. Colt’s considered the Navy’s unauthorized use to be a material breach of the M16 licensing agreement and sought damages. To settle the dispute, Colt’s and the government executed the M4 Addendum to the M16 licensing agreement, which barred the government from using M4 technical data in competitive procurements for approximately 13 years. Because of the M4 Addendum’s restrictions, the government granted Colt’s a sole-source contract to manufacture M4s. FNM protested the sole-source award, arguing that (1) the government violated 10 U.S.C. § 2320 by relinquishing its rights to the M4 technical data; and (2) the M4 Addendum violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) because it limited competition. To help resolve FNM’s protest, FNM and the government asked the court for an interim ruling on the relevant legal issues.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wiese, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership