1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Defective Complaint Can Still Have Preclusive Effect Under FCA's First-to-File Bar

Defective Complaint Can Still Have Preclusive Effect Under FCA's First-to-File Bar

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.13

In U.S. ex rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp. (May 31, 2013), the First Circuit weighed in on a jurisprudential split over the FCA's first-to-file bar between courts that hold that the earlier-filed complaint must meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement for pleading fraud in order to have preclusive effect and those that do not. Affirming the dismissal of the relator's claims, the First Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit and other district courts in rejecting the application of Rule 9(b) to the first-to-file bar and holding that dismissal is appropriate so long as the earlier complaint put the government on sufficient notice to initiate an investigation into the alleged fraud. 


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25

Design Patent Application Drawings & Prosecution History Must Be Clear (Merely Translucent Won’t Suffice!)

Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope)....