1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |State University Hospital Fends Off FCA Claims Under "Arm-of-the-State" Test

State University Hospital Fends Off FCA Claims Under "Arm-of-the-State" Test

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.13

In U.S. ex rel. King v. The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, a federal court considered whether The University of Texas Health Science Center–Houston was subject to liability under the qui tam provisions of the federal civil False Claims Act, based on a former employee's allegations that the hospital had defrauded the federal government by covering up misconduct related to federal research grants, and retaliated against the employee for reporting the misconduct. Applying the "arm-of-the-state" test (previously discussed here), the court held that the university hospital was a state entity -- and thus, was not a "person" subject to suit under the FCA -- and likewise held that employee's FCA retaliation claim was barred by sovereign immunity, providing a victory in the latest round of FCA scrutiny impacting higher ed institutions (discussed here and here).


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights