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 | 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
