In Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel Escobar, the United States Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the materiality standard in False Claims Act cases. Since that decision, litigants have anxiously awaited further guidance on how Escobar’s instructions would

In a closely watched decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously endorsed a version of the “implied false certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  In a decision that leaves almost as many questions unanswered as it resolved, the Court held that a material omission on a claim for payment may give rise to liability where two conditions are met:

On May 5, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued six new examples that provide guidance to Examiners and patent applicants prosecuting claims directed to life sciences subject matter (Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences).  These examples analyze claims that are directed to several of the most contentious areas of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including vaccines, methods for diagnosing and treating, nature-based products including mixtures, methods for genetic screening, and machines and processes that are alleged to be founded on a natural law. 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to embrace the government’s expansive view of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), as it heard oral arguments in what may prove to be one of the most significant FCA cases in decades. While it is always hazardous to draw conclusions from questions at oral argument, some of the questioning indicated that the Court may offer qualified support for some kind of “implied certification” theory of legal falsity that falls short of the government’s broad position.  The case is Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.  For healthcare providers and government contractors, the decision could radically alter the landscape of potential liability for false claims.