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 | 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
