"Presentment" Defense Rejected In Medicare FCA Case
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.05.06
The developing case law interpreting the False Claims Act's imposition of liability on anyone who "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented" a false claim to the federal government should especially interest any company whose "government" business involves directly invoicing someone other than the government itself -- e.g., a grantee, a state or local government, a fiscal intermediary, or a prime contractor -- even though federal funds may ultimately be included in the payment. Another recent decision in this line, United States v. Squire , 2005 WL 3470297 (N.D. Illinois Dec. 12, 2005), denied a Medicare provider's motion to dismiss, holding that the provider may "cause" a false claim to be "presented" by means of a convoluted pathway, where the provider's requests for payment are submitted directly to a "fiscal intermediary" (administrative services contractor) which determines the correct amount of the provider's compensation and then authorizes a commercial bank to draw down a daily total from the Medicare trust funds held by the Federal Reserve Bank, a daily total which includes -- among a great many other things -- an amount used to compensate the provider.
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
