Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Rule 9(b) Pleading Requirements Case
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.14
The Supreme Court has followed the government's recommendation (discussed in a previous bullet point and blog post) not to hear an appeal challenging the dismissal of relator's complaint in U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013), for failure to allege specific false claims instead of a false scheme – an issue over which the government admits there is "at least some continuing uncertainty." The Court has invited the government's views on granting cert. in another prominent FCA case, KBR, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Carter (addressing the scope of the FCA's first-to-file bar and the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) (discussed here), but the Solicitor General has not yet weighed in.
Contacts
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
