Court Applies Totten Reasoning To Subcontractor Liability Under FCA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.05
Applying the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004), regarding lack of False Claims Act (FCA) liability for claims made by contractors of federal grantees when those claims are not presented to the Government for payment [see Crowell & Moring Bullet Points 9/16/2004 and 12/16/04), the Southern District of Ohio in U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. Allison Engine Co. (Mar. 11, 2005) dismissed a qui tam case for failure to present evidence that the defendant subcontractor's claims had been presented to the government for payment. In so doing, the court distinguished longstanding Supreme Court precedent imposing subcontractor liability when the prime passes the sub's false claim up to the government.
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
