1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FCA Does Not Authorize In-House Counsel/Relator to Reveal Client Confidences

FCA Does Not Authorize In-House Counsel/Relator to Reveal Client Confidences

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.18.13

In Fair Lab. Practices Assocs. v. Quest Diagnostics (Oct. 25, 2013), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a qui tam suit that was brought by a general partnership formed for the purpose of bringing the suit because (1) the partnership included the defendant's former general counsel, and (2) the former general counsel violated his ethical obligations by divulging confidential client information in pursuit of the litigation, notwithstanding that a non-lawyer member of the partnership initiated the suit. While the Second Circuit did not create a bright-line rule barring all in-house lawyers from using client information in FCA cases, it did strike a balance between a lawyer's ethical obligations to the client and the government's competing interest in encouraging "whistleblowers" to report fraud, finding that the disclosure exceeded what was necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime.


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.26.26

pH, Prosecution History Estoppel, and Patent Scope: Three Lessons from the Federal Circuit's Latest Hatch-Waxman Ruling

On May 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of no infringement in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-1641. The decision offers important guidance for patent holders and generic manufacturers on the role of industry standards in interpreting scientific terminology during claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and the disclosure-dedication rule....