Intentional Low Bid Is Not A False Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.04
In U.S. ex rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of Cal. (Jan. 28, 2004), the D.C. federal district court granted summary judgment in the contractor's favor, rejecting numerous False Claims Act allegations, including, most notably, the relator’s theory that the contractor had fraudulently induced the government to enter into a construction contract by intentionally underbidding for the project, while allegedly planning to submit false changes claims during performance. While expressly recognizing that false estimates could be the basis of an actionable false claim, the court ruled that the mere knowing submission of an unreasonably low bid (at least in the absence of any subsequent illegitimate request for adjustment) did not, by itself, cause the government to pay out funds to which the contractor was not entitled.
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
