1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Materiality Rules: Escobar Changes the Game

Materiality Rules: Escobar Changes the Game

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.15.17

On May 1, 2017, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a relator’s claims in United States ex rel. Petratos, et al. v. Genentech Inc. in a False Claims Act (FCA) case in which the relator alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturer Genentech had suppressed data about a cancer drug’s side effects. Applying the materiality analysis from the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the Third Circuit “join[ed] the many other federal courts that have recognized the heightened materiality standard after [Escobar]” and found that the relator failed to allege that Genentech made misrepresentations that were material to government’s decision to pay claims. The Third Circuit’s decision in Petratos is just one of the nearly 100 court opinions that have cited Escobar in the eleven months since the Court’s landmark ruling on the on the implied-certification theory of liability. In a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor, C&M attorneys analyze some of the key cases and explore the developing trends in the wake of Escobar.

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