DAM Contractor's Underbidding Insufficient For FCA Liability
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.21.05
Affirming summary judgment, the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Bettis v. Oderbrecht Contractors (Jan. 11, 2005) held that evidence that a dam contractor (1) underbid, (2) reaffirmed its underbid, and (3) claimed that it would use cost-saving measures it never employed did not permit the conclusion that the contractor fraudulently induced the Army Corps of Engineers to award it the contract. The Court acknowledged that claims submitted for payment under a contract that was fraudulently induced can give rise to civil False Claims Act liability, but found in this case that the contractor's underbid was not a promise that its estimated costs were accurate, only that it would perform the dam work at the unit prices it bid, such that submission of claims for payment under the contract, including claims for equitable adjustments above the contract price, were not false claims.
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
