Victory for Lockheed Martin in Qui Tam Jury Trial -- Led by Crowell & Moring Team
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.14
After a six-day trial in Los Angeles, a jury unanimously found in favor of Lockheed Martin Corporation, represented by Crowell & Moring, in a qui tam suit under the civil False Claims Act in which the plaintiff alleged fraudulent underbidding on a contract for the development of a system to standardize and automate the eastern and western ranges used for launching rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral. The plaintiff claimed single damages of approximately $450 million (subject to trebling under the Act), representing the difference between Lockheed Martin's original cost estimate and the final contract value of $883 million paid under the cost-reimbursement contract; however, the jury found: (a) the cost estimates for the original contract and those submitted in support of Air Force directed changes were not false statements (a finding based in part on the testimony of key Air Force personnel), and (b) the termination of plaintiff's employment with Lockheed Martin was not a retaliatory discharge.
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
