Whistleblower Rebuffs Counterclaim for Disclosing Confidential Information
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.20.16
In U.S. ex rel. Cieszynski v. LifeWatch Servs. (N.D. Ill., May 9), the court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim against a former employee and FCA whistleblower, ruling that the whistleblower’s disclosure of protected patient information fell within the public policy protections for whistleblowers. As described in a post on the Whistleblower Watch Blog, there has been an increase in recent years of FCA defendants raising counterclaims based on breaches of confidentiality agreements, and this will likely remain an active area of litigation until the courts clearly define what documents an FCA whistleblower can take from an employer and how the whistleblower can use those documents to support FCA allegations.
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
