1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ambiguity Remains After Escobar

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 | 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