Bad Alchemy: Turning Estimates Into Fraud
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.08.06
Building on comments at the Nash & Cibinic Roundtable, David Bodenheimer challenges the oxymoronic trend of government agencies and qui tam whistleblowers to assert defective pricing or false claims based upon second-guessing poor estimates. In his article "'False' or 'Inaccurate' Estimates" published in the December 2005 Briefing Paper (http://www.crowell.com/pdf/Expertise/GovtContracts/BriefingPapers_Bodenheimer.pdf), he explains that estimating -- due to its inherently risky and predictive nature -- requires judgmental forecasts long recognized as appropriate by government pricing guidelines and not suitable for defective pricing and fraud suits complaining about bad estimates of future events.
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
