Subcontractor Must Intend That Government Pay False Claim Submitted To Prime, Supreme Court Rules
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.10.08
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision this week in Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders (June 9, 2008, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-214.pdf), interprets section 3729(a)(2) of the federal civil False Claims Act (imposing treble damages and penalties on anyone who "knowingly makes [or] uses … a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid by the Government") in a way likely to increase the difficulty of pursuing FCA allegations against government subcontractors such as those in this case, who allegedly submitted false certificates of conformance to the primes and higher-tier subs under Navy shipbuilding contracts. The Court stated, (1) that 3729(a)(2) includes an intent requirement, i.e., the plaintiff must prove that the subcontractor defendant intended that the government pay a false claim in reliance on the sub's false statements to the prime, and (2) that although section (a)(2), unlike section (a)(1), does not require proof that the defendant "presented" a false claim to the government, (3) it still is not sufficient under (a)(2) simply to prove that a sub's false statement "resulted in the use of Government funds to pay a false or fraudulent claim," because if that were so, "almost boundless" FCA liability could attach to any fraud against a private party as long as the victim had received some federal funds.
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
