1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Reverse False Claim Requires "Established" Obligation to Pay

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.26.26

pH, Prosecution History Estoppel, and Patent Scope: Three Lessons from the Federal Circuit's Latest Hatch-Waxman Ruling

On May 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of no infringement in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 24-1641. The decision offers important guidance for patent holders and generic manufacturers on the role of industry standards in interpreting scientific terminology during claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and the disclosure-dedication rule....