Similar State FCA Allegations Yield Mixed Results
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.05
In two California Civil False Claims Act (FCA) cases recently decided by different districts of the California Court of Appeal, California ex rel. Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Jan. 20, 2005) and California ex rel. Bowen v. Bank of America (Jan. 31, 2005), qui tam relators got mixed results on their novel “reverse false claims”allegations that the defendants failed to report and turn over to the State unclaimed property as required by California law. In Harris, applying case law under the federal FCA, the court upheld liability against an escrow title company and reversed summary judgment in favor of its accountants; but in Bowen, the Court, also applying federal case law, upheld the dismissal of the consolidated complaint against several banks on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts that would make the subject property “certain and liquidated,” such that no reverse false claim could arise from the failure to report and turn over the property.
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
