Fraudulent Claim Gets The Triple Whammy
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 03.03.09
In Daewoo Eng'g and Constr. Co. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the CFC's findings that the contractor had submitted a $64 million claim involving approximately $50 million based on material misrepresentations that amounted to a fraud. From this, the contractor received the triple whammy of forfeiting its entire claim under the CDA, being penalized $50 million under the CDA, and being fined $10,000 under the FCA.
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
