One Employee's Fraud Bars Company's Monetary Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.19.16
In Laguna Constr. Co. v. Carter (July 15), the Federal Circuit denied Laguna’s claim seeking $2.9 million in unpaid invoices because an employee pled guilty to accepting subcontract kickbacks in Iraq – fraudulent conduct that the court imputed to the company and ruled was a breach of the “Allowable Cost and Payment” clause. The court ruled that the ASBCA had jurisdiction to rule on the government’s affirmative defense of “prior material breach” that was based on a fraud conviction, that this affirmative defense does not require a separate CO final decision per Maropakis, and that the contractor’s fraud-based breach excused the government’s subsequent breach (failure to pay for the completed and invoiced work) – a reminder to contractors of the importance of ethics training and monitoring.
Contacts
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
