Ambiguity Remains After Escobar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.09.16
In U.S. ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown Ltd. (Oct. 24, 2016), the Seventh Circuit, applying the materiality standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Escobar (discussion available here), held that the relator’s allegations that the college inflated grades and job placement figures and paid bonuses to employees for recruitment to fraudulently obtain federal student aid money failed because there was no evidence that the college had made any express or implied representations with its claims for payment or evidence that the government’s payment decision would likely have been different had it known of the alleged misrepresentations. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ. Inc. (Oct. 19, 2016) held that similar allegations withstood summary judgment (as noted by C&M here), suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobar may not have resolved the circuit split on implied certification after all.
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
