1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Implied False Certification Split Widens

Implied False Certification Split Widens

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.15

In U.S. v. Sanford-Brown, Ltd. (June 8, 2015), the Seventh Circuit rejected the implied false certification theory of False Claims Act liability, holding that alleged noncompliance with Title IV restrictions incorporated into a program participation agreement (PPA) for the Department of Education's subsidies program was insufficient to trigger FCA liability absent evidence that the defendant's application to establish initial Title IV eligibility was fraudulent. Although the majority of circuits have expressly adopted some form of the implied false certification theory of liability, the court joined the Fifth Circuit as the holdouts in rejecting the theory, explaining that "it would be . . . unreasonable for us to hold that an institution's continued compliance with the thousands of pages of federal statutes and regulations incorporated by reference into the PPA are conditions of payment for purposes of liability under the FCA."


Contacts

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)....

View All Insights