Highlights
Controlled FORCE, Inc., protests the terms of solicitation no. N40085-13-R-3314, issued by the Navy, for security guard services for Navy installations within the Navy's Mid-Atlantic region. Specifically, the protester argues the Navy is violating intellectual property laws by incorporating the protester's Mechanical Advantage Control Holds program into the solicitation requirements and Navy guidance.
Decision
Matter of: Controlled FORCE, Inc.
File: B-408853
Date: September 18, 2013
Diana Grano, Controlled FORCE, Inc., for the protester.
David L. Nimmich, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
The Government Accountability Office lacks jurisdiction to consider disputes about infringement of intellectual property rights.
DECISION
Controlled FORCE, Inc., protests the terms of solicitation no. N40085-13-R-3314, issued by the Navy, for security guard services for Navy installations within the Navys Mid-Atlantic region. Specifically, the protester argues the Navy is violating intellectual property laws by incorporating the protesters Mechanical Advantage Control Holds program into the solicitation requirements and Navy guidance.
We dismiss this protest because we do not consider questions of intellectual property infringement under our bid protest jurisdiction.
A patent or copyright holders remedy for any alleged government violation of its intellectual property rights, resulting from a government procurement, is a suit for money damages against the government before the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1498. See Diversified Technologies; Almon A. Johnson, Inc., B-236035, Nov. 6, 1989, 89-2 CPD ¶ 427, See also Wynn Baxter/Educational Training Concepts, B-197713, May 20, 1980, 80-1 CPD ¶ 349. Additionally, original jurisdiction over trademark disputes lies in the district and territorial courts of the United States, not with our Office. 15 U.S.C. § 1121. Accordingly, our Office lacks jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in the protest.
Susan A. Poling
General Counsel
This is a verbatim capture of GAO's own published decision. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order GAO wrote them. One thing is moved: GAO collects its numbered notes at the foot of the document, and each is shown here under the paragraph that first cites it, with its own number carrying you back. A note the decision never cites stays where GAO printed it.