Defective Complaint Can Still Have Preclusive Effect Under FCA's First-to-File Bar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.13
In U.S. ex rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp. (May 31, 2013), the First Circuit weighed in on a jurisprudential split over the FCA's first-to-file bar between courts that hold that the earlier-filed complaint must meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement for pleading fraud in order to have preclusive effect and those that do not. Affirming the dismissal of the relator's claims, the First Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit and other district courts in rejecting the application of Rule 9(b) to the first-to-file bar and holding that dismissal is appropriate so long as the earlier complaint put the government on sufficient notice to initiate an investigation into the alleged fraud.
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
