Court Cuts Back FCA Coverage For Medicaid Fraud
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.16.04
Following the lead of the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. (Aug. 27, 2004) [see C&M Bullet Point 9/16/2004), in U.S. ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer (Oct. 27, 2004), the Northern District of Alabama dismissed a qui tam complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the complaint did not allege that the defendant health care providers “presented” claims to the federal Government for payment when making claims (or conspiring to make claims) to the Alabama Medicaid Agency, even though that agency receives 70% of its funding from the federal Government. Unwilling to wait for the then-pending (now-denied) motion for en banc rehearing of Totten, and staking out a position with far-reaching implications for contractors doing business with federal grantees, particularly Medicaid providers, the District Court broadly held: “If the Totten court is correct, fraud perpetrated upon a non-federal agency cannot form the basis for an FCA claim just because the non-federal agency thereafter presents a claim for payment to a federal official.”
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).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
