1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.13.09

The Fourth Circuit in United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC (4th Cir. April 10, 2009), affirmed summary judgment in the contractor's favor in a qui tam case alleging that Custer Battles (represented by C&M) had fraudulently induced the Coalition Provisional Authority to issue it a contract worth $17 million for security services at the Baghdad International Airport, agreeing "with the district court that the relators have not presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that Custer Battles violated the False Claims Act …." However, the Fourth Circuit also reversed judgment as a matter of law in favor of Custer Battles related to another contract Custer Battles had with the CPA for support services for the Dinar Exchange Program and remanded for further proceedings based on its findings that the district court erred in limiting the relators' claims to $3 million by using a "source-of-funds" analysis and in its presentment analysis under sections 3729 (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the FCA, including its holding that presentment must be proven under sections 3729 (a)(2) of the FCA, as the Supreme Court found to the contrary in Allison Engine while the case was on appeal.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

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....