1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act Available to Qui Tam Relators Even When the U.S. Does Not Intervene

Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act Available to Qui Tam Relators Even When the U.S. Does Not Intervene

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.20.13

In U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Mar. 18, 2013), the Fourth Circuit held that (1) dismissals of a qui tam plaintiff's FCA complaint under the first-to-file bar should be without prejudice, thereby allowing a relator to refile her complaint after the original action has been dismissed and is no longer "pending"; and (2) the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA), which tolls "any statute of limitations applicable to any offense[ ] involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States" "[w]hen the United States is at war," applies (i) to both civil and criminal fraud against the United States, (ii) even without a formal declaration of war, and (iii) regardless of whether the U.S. intervenes. In a partial dissent, Judge Agee argued that allowing relators to benefit from the WSLA when the government has not intervened provides a "strong financial incentive for relators to allow false claims to build up over time before they filed, thereby increasing their own potential recovery."


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)....

View All Insights