Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General Weigh In on Cert Petition Involving Specificity of False Claims Act Complaints

By Daniel A. Cody on October 8, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On October 7, 2013, in evaluating a pending cert petition, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Office of Solicitor General to provide its views regarding the level of specificity required when alleging activities in violation of the civil False Claims Act (FCA) (United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, No. 12-1349, order 10/7/13).

On May 10, a pharmaceutical sales manager petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate his whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Takeda defrauded the government by presenting false claims in connection with its marketing of the drug Kapidex, a proton pump inhibitor. The United States and multiple states’ attorneys general have declined to intervene in the action which generally alleges that Takeda engaged in a marketing/sales program to promote off-label use of Kapidex resulting in the improper presentation of claims for reimbursement to government health care programs. While having been granted three opportunities to allege specific examples of submission of such false claims, the Fourth Circuit in January unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Highlighting a split in the circuit courts regarding the level of specificity required for FCA complaints under Rule 9(b), Nathan asserts that the more lenient standards of the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits should apply as he sufficiently alleged a “scheme” to submit false claims. Takeda argues that Nathan’s failure to identify any actual false claims or to reliably demonstrate that such a false claim was presented (rather than may have been presented) to the government fails under any reasonable interpretation of the Rule 9(b) requirements.

This year, the First, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have reaffirmed their respective positions regarding 9(b)’s specificity requirements in FCA cases, and we will continue to monitor this case and further developments on this important threshold issue.

Photo of Daniel A. Cody Daniel A. Cody
Email
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Life Sciences Legal Update
  • Organization:
    Reed Smith LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo