Seal Violation Does Not Mandate Dismissal, Supreme Court Says
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.07.16
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court in State Farm and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby rejected the argument that a violation of the FCA’s seal requirement — here, disclosure of the allegations of the sealed complaint to the news media by relator’s counsel — mandates dismissal of a relator’s complaint, holding instead that such a determination is better left to the discretion of the district court. The Court reasoned that the FCA is silent as to the remedy for violating the seal provision, whereas it expressly mandates dismissal elsewhere, and that a rule mandating dismissal could harm the government’s interests —which the seal requirement was meant to protect — by depriving the government of assistance from relators on which it relies to prosecute FCA claims.
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
