On January 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an amended opinion and order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc, thus upholding its August reversal of the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a qui tam whistleblower action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA claim was brought by patent attorney Zachary Silbersher against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, predecessor to Canadian drugmaker Bausch Health. The appellate court’s decision turned on the application of the FCA’s public disclosure bar, finding that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings did not trigger the statutory bar to qui tam actions based on evidence previously disclosed during adversarial agency proceedings “in which the Government or its agent is a party.”
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 11: CAFC Denies Transfer of EDTX Patent Case; Texas Leads Entire U.S. in IP Exports; and Google Declines to Respond to Cellspin Soft Cert Petition
- Federal Circuit Issues Precedential Order Denying Mandamus Relief for SAP, Despite District Court Errors
- CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Opposition to iVoters Marks But Hints USPTO Should Reconsider Registration
- Why Creativity and Ownership Are Crucial to Innovation | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Can Judge Hughes Course Correct the CAFC on Prosecution Laches?