1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Solicitor General Weighs in (Sort of) on Rule 9(b)

Solicitor General Weighs in (Sort of) on Rule 9(b)

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.27.14

In October 2013, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to express the government's views on a pending petition for certiorari in U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, whose central issue concerns the requisite level of particularity required by Rule 9(b) in FCA cases. The Solicitor General has now asked the Supreme Court to deny the relator's petition, calling the case "not a suitable vehicle" for resolving the particularity question (because the lower court reached the correct result on other grounds), while expressing the government's view that "a qui tam complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) if it contains detailed allegations supporting a plausible inference that false claims were submitted to the government, even if the complaint does not identify specific requests for payment"(emphasis added).


Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....