Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment on Affordable Care Act "CSR" Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.05.18
In Montana Health Co-Op v. U.S. (September 4, 2018), an important decision likely to reverberate throughout the health insurance industry, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Montana Health in a lawsuit seeking to recover "cost-sharing reduction" (CSR) payments pursuant to §1402 of the Affordable Care Act, deciding on the merits that: (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Montana Health is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Montana Health with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Montana Health that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation. The Montana Health decision is a significant decision in COFC money-mandating statute jurisprudence.
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





