Ninth Circuit Narrows Qualifications for Being Qui Tam "Original Source"
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.04.14
The Ninth Circuit, in Malhotra v. Steinberg (Oct. 29, 2014), held that, despite tipping off the government as to one kind of wrongdoing by the defendant, the FCA relators were not the "original source" of a different alleged act of wrongdoing perpetrated by the same defendant, a bankruptcy trustee. The relators independently discovered and alerted federal authorities to defendant trustee's scheme to sell property at a price lower than fair market value, but because that federal investigation led to the public disclosure of the defendant's receipt of kickbacks from those sales, the court held that the relators were not the original source of the kickback allegation which formed the basis of their qui tam action.
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).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
