"Collective Knowledge" Rejected
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.07.10
In U.S. v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., the D.C. Circuit concluded that the government cannot use "collective knowledge" jury instructions to prove that a corporation violated the False Claims Act because it would allow FCA liability without the level of knowledge required by the statute – i.e., that the corporation's employees acted in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of its claims. A collective knowledge instruction improperly allows the government "to prove scienter by piecing together scraps of innocent knowledge held by various corporate officials."
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
