Expert Advice -- Caveat Emptor
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.04
On the heels of a district court rejecting a company's reliance on expert advice in a recent False Claims Act case involving independent research and development charges (U.S. v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Va. 2003)), the Department of Justice has filed a complaint against a major accounting firm alleging that advice provided by that firm to a number of its healthcare clients caused the clients to submit "false claims" in the form of inflated bills for Medicare patients (U.S. v. Ernst & Young, LLP (E.D. Pa., filed Jan. 5, 2004)). Read in conjunction, these cases suggest that reliance on advice from outside accounting experts and other consultants as a defense to FCA charges may not be a safe harbor, particularly in circumstances where there is reason to believe that the expert advice will be perceived as "aggressive" by the government.
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
