Reverse False Claim Requires "Established" Obligation to Pay
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.15.16
On December 13, 2016, the Fifth Circuit, reversing the district court, held in U.S. ex rel. Simoneaux v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co that the 2009 amendments to the FCA did not abrogate its prior precedent holding that reverse false claims liability did not extend to potential or contingent obligations to pay unassessed government fines or penalties. Agreeing with both the defendant and, notably, the United States, the court concluded that, while the 2009 amendments clarified that the amount of the obligation need not be “fixed,” the duty to pay had to be “established” before liability could attach.
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
