1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Denies Fraud Counterclaims for Lack of Scienter

CFC Denies Fraud Counterclaims for Lack of Scienter

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.08.13

In response to a contractor's CDA claim for the cancellation of two purchase orders for printed circuit cards when the contractor manufactured the parts itself rather than providing the parts from specified approved sources, the government in Ulysses, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 30, 2013), brought counterclaims for fraud under the False Claims Act, the fraud provision of the Contract Disputes Act, and the Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act. The CFC denied them all, holding that the contractor did not act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of its claims because neither the RFQ nor the contractor's quotation leading to the purchase order specified a particular source and, therefore, its erroneous interpretation of the purchase orders "was not so implausible as to be frivolous" and because it had advised the government that it believed it was an approved source, "making this a classic case for application of the Government knowledge defense."


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel

As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”).  Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.  35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR.  But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised. ...

View All Insights