Little Dab of Fraud Will Do Ya (In)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.19.07
In an unusual remand from the en banc court back to the panel for a "do over," the Federal Circuit in Long Island Savings Bank, FSB v. U.S. (Sept. 13, 2007) reversed a $435 million verdict for the bank in this Winstar-type case because the bank, in its application materials, did not disclose that its CEO was violating federal banking regulations by having an interest in the law firm to which the bank sent all its mortgage business, with this common-law fraud making the contract void ab initio. Still unexplained, however, is why the panel felt obliged then to discuss whether the fraud was a prior material breach to the government's when the contract was void and its passing reference that there might be "other theories of recovery."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
