False Estimates: A Misguided Notion Under The FCA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.22.05
Just as Russian officials have sought to hold weather forecasters liable for bad predictions, some qui tam relators and federal agencies have sought to stretch the False Claims Act (FCA) to impose liability for false estimates. In his article "The Strange Notion of Estimates as Fraud: Will Weather Predictions Be Next Under the False Claims Act?" published in The Procurement Lawyer (Summer 2005 http://www.crowell.com/pdf/BodenheimerSUM05.pdf), David Z. Bodenheimer explains that these "false estimate" allegations cannot be squared with common law rules that generally exclude opinions and predictions as a basis for fraud, FCA requirements that demand objective (not subjective) proof of falsity, and basic federal procurement standards that recognize the subjectivity inherent in estimating future costs.
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
