Fastship, LLC v. United States

16 Citing cases

  1. FastShip, LLC v. United States

    968 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    The Claims Court also found that the accused LCS-3 ship was not ‘‘manufactured’’ by or for the government within the meaning of § 1498 before the patents in suit expired. We affirmed that decision in FastShip, LLC v. United States , 892 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ( FastShip I ). Subsequently, FastShip filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).

  2. DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols. L.L.C.

    671 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (S.D. Cal. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    "Attorney argument is not evidence." Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017); accord FastShip, LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As such, Genotek's attorney argument regarding "fluorescence" is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

  3. Servant Health, LLC v. United States

    No. 2022-2193 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 30, 2024)

    "We review a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims de novo." FastShip, LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"

  4. Fastship, LLC v. Lockhead Martin Corp.

    No. 20-3529 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2022)

    FastShip sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. See FastShip, LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2018).See FastShip, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed.Cl. 592, 627 (Fed. Cl. 2017).

  5. Anderson v. United States

    No. 2021-1445 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022)

    Accordingly, we review a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims de novo. FastShip, LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the mo-vant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; RCFC 56(a).

  6. Anderson v. United States

    23 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, we review a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims de novo. FastShip, LLC v. United States , 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  7. Ideal Innovations, Inc. v. United States

    No. 2020-2065 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2021)   1 Legal Analyses

    "We review a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims de novo." FastShip, LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; RCFC 56(a).

  8. In re Akpeneye

    990 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    We review a grant of summary judgment by the Claims Court de novo. Athey v. United States , 908 F.3d 696, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing FastShip, LLC v. United States , 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ). Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  9. Almanza v. United States

    935 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    Almanza raises three issues on appeal: (i) whether 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(2) is invalid under Billings v. United States , 322 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ; (ii) whether the Claims Court erred in concluding on summary judgment that Almanza’s time spent on off-hours activities was not "hours of work" under 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(2) ; and (iii) whether the Claims Court erred in concluding on summary judgment that Almanza’s time spent on off-hours activities was not "hours of work" under 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(4). We review a grant of summary judgment by the Claims Court de novo. FastShip, LLC v. United States , 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

  10. Ginsburg v. United States

    922 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

    We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims' grant of summary judgment. FastShip, LLC v. United States , 892 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."