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
- USPTO Fee Report: Discounts Don’t Cut It for Incentivizing New Patent Participants
- Federal Circuit Splits on Whether Toddler Tub May Infringe
- CAFC Rules Patent Applications are Considered Pre-AIA Prior Art By Filing Date, Not Publication Date
- The Biden Administration Rolls the Dice on NIH Patent Licensing
- The PTAB’s 70% All-Claims Invalidation Rate Continues to Be a Source of Concern