CFC Denies Fraud Counterclaims for Lack of Scienter
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.08.13
In response to a contractor's CDA claim for the cancellation of two purchase orders for printed circuit cards when the contractor manufactured the parts itself rather than providing the parts from specified approved sources, the government in Ulysses, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 30, 2013), brought counterclaims for fraud under the False Claims Act, the fraud provision of the Contract Disputes Act, and the Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act. The CFC denied them all, holding that the contractor did not act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of its claims because neither the RFQ nor the contractor's quotation leading to the purchase order specified a particular source and, therefore, its erroneous interpretation of the purchase orders "was not so implausible as to be frivolous" and because it had advised the government that it believed it was an approved source, "making this a classic case for application of the Government knowledge defense."
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
