Intentional Low Bid Is Not A False Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.04
In U.S. ex rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of Cal. (Jan. 28, 2004), the D.C. federal district court granted summary judgment in the contractor's favor, rejecting numerous False Claims Act allegations, including, most notably, the relator’s theory that the contractor had fraudulently induced the government to enter into a construction contract by intentionally underbidding for the project, while allegedly planning to submit false changes claims during performance. While expressly recognizing that false estimates could be the basis of an actionable false claim, the court ruled that the mere knowing submission of an unreasonably low bid (at least in the absence of any subsequent illegitimate request for adjustment) did not, by itself, cause the government to pay out funds to which the contractor was not entitled.
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
