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 | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
