Nothing Private about Relator's Qui Tam Action Info
Free Article Limit This Month
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) and remanded for further proceedings. U.S. ex rel Silbersher v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 21-15420 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2022) (Gould, Bennett, Nelson, JJ)
Relator Silbersher, a patent lawyer, brought his action against the defendants under the FCA. (31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)). Silbersher alleged that the defendants unlawfully obtained several patents related to two drugs used to treat Alzheimer's disease. He asserted that by fraudulently obtaining these patents, the defendants prevented generic drug competitors from entering the market. As a result, Medicare paid inflated prices for the two drugs in violation of the FCA.
The US Department of Justice, all of the states that have analogues to the federal qui tam provision and the District of Columbia declined to intervene in Silbersher's action. Additionally, the key factual information in Silbersher's complaint was all disclosed publicly and much of it could be found on the US Patent & Trademark Office's (PTO) website as well as on other government websites. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the public disclosure bar did not apply to Silbersher's claims. The defendants appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, noting that the "FCA creates civil liability for ‘any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or] (B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.' 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)." The FCA limits who can bring a qui tam action and the sources of information upon which they can base their suit. The public disclosure bar seeks to strike a balance between encouraging suits by whistleblowers with genuinely valuable information and discouraging plaintiffs who have no significant information of their own to contribute. The Court, citing its 2018 case United States ex rel. Solis v. Millennium Pharms., reaffirmed the elements of the test for triggering the bar:
"(1) the disclosure at issue occurred through one of the channels specified in the statute;
(2) the disclosure was public; and
(3) the relator's action is substantially the same as the allegation or transaction publicly disclosed."
The Ninth Circuit determined that only the first element was at issue in this case and that "[i]t is salient and potentially controlling that the key factual information underlying Silbersher's complaint was all publicly disclosed, and much could be found in websites maintained by the PTO and other government agencies." Under the public disclosure bar, a court shall dismiss an action or claim if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged were publicly disclosed (1) in a federal criminal, civil or administrative hearing in which the government was a party; (2) in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other federal report, hearing, audit or investigation or (3) from the news media.
The defendants argued that Silbersher's claims are based on information disclosure in an "other Federal hearing," an "other Federal report" and "from the news media." The Ninth Circuit determined that an ex parte patent prosecution is an administrative proceeding that qualifies as an "other Federal hearing" within the meaning of the statute and that Silbersher's claims were based on information publicly disclosed in the PTO proceeding. Therefore, the public disclosure bar was triggered.
The Ninth Circuit did not express any views on the defendants' other public disclosure bar arguments, nor did it express any views on whether Silbersher could still bring his action if he is an "original source" of the information in his complaint. The Court remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.