{"id":6216,"date":"2020-05-28T16:42:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-28T16:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&p=6216"},"modified":"2025-11-21T21:29:55","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T21:29:55","slug":"court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.<\/em>, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam <\/em>lawsuit the court found was based largely on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision and thus violated the public disclosure bar. No. 3:18-cv-01496-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548, at *22\u201327 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2020). The court also found media reports of the PTAB decision triggered the news media bar, \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A)(iii). Id. <\/em>at *27. In a notable twist, relator Zachary Silbersher was the attorney who had successfully litigated the PTAB case\u2014a circumstance that drew the court\u2019s concern. Id. <\/em>at *30\u00ad\u201331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Relevant Background and Relator\u2019s Complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant) held a patent1<\/a><\/sup> for a drug used to treat ulcerative colitis and other inflammatory bowel conditions. Id. <\/em>at *3\u20134. The drug, Apriso, uses a special enteric coating to prevent its active ingredient, mesalamine, from being metabolized while in the stomach, enabling it to reach the bowel. Id. <\/em>at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GeneriCo, represented by Silbersher, challenged two of the patent\u2019s underlying claims before the PTAB, which found the claims \u201cunpatentable as obvious\u201d and invalidated the patent. Id. <\/em>at *5. The PTAB analyzed in detail the scientific studies and other \u201cprior art\u201d\u2014meaning \u201cinformation that is available to the public as of the date of the claim invention, including information that could obviously be inferred,\u201d Cardionet, Inc. v. Scottcare Corp.<\/em>, Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-2516, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144251, at *5 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014)\u2014on which the claims were based, id. <\/em>at *5\u20136.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The May 2017 PTAB decision was promptly reported in news media, including legal publication Law360, which \u201cannounce[d] that GeneriCo had shown the challenged patent claims would have been obvious . . . and explicitly linked the decision to Apriso.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *7\u20138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2018, the relator filed an FCA complaint2<\/a><\/sup> alleging defendants obtained the patent through \u201cwillful deceit,\u201d by \u201cdeliberately omitting\u201d from their patent application information \u201cthey knew . . . would render the patent invalid.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *8\u20139. The complaint alleged defendants fraudulently obtained the patent to escape generic competition and inflate prices; the resulting \u201cartificially high prices made a false claim out of each and every Apriso prescription covered by Medicare\u201d and other government programs. Id. <\/em>at *9\u201310.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting the complaint (i) alleged no actionable false claims, (ii) violated the public disclosure bar, and (iii) failed Rule 9(b)\u2019s pleading requirement for fraud. Id. <\/em>at *3. The court dismissed based on the public disclosure bar. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

District Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FCA\u2019s public disclosure bar is intended to weed out complaints that reveal no \u201cindependently discovered information of fraud,\u201d but instead \u201cparasitic[ally] . . . feed off of previous disclosures.\u201d  Bannon v. Edgewater Med. Ctr.<\/em>, 406 F. Supp. 2d 907, 926 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (quoting United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Commty. Health Sys., Inc.<\/em>, 342 F.3d 634, 646 (6th Cir. 2003) (alterations and omission added)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unless the government objects, the provision mandates dismissal of an action or claim \u201cif substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed (i) in a Federal criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party; (ii) in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or (iii) from the news media.\u201d  31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its analysis, the district court underscored the close relationship between the qui tam<\/em> and the patent litigation, which the court termed \u201cthe foundation on which [the relator\u2019s complaint] [wa]s built.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *8. Indeed, it found that the complaint showed the relator\u2019s knowledge of the fraud came entirely from publicly available information and the PTAB decision. Id. <\/em>at *18. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the relator \u201cforthright[ly] conce[ded]\u201d through his attorney at oral argument, \u201c[b]efore 2010, there would be no case.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *16. This was because the FCA\u2019s prior version, enacted in 1986, jurisdictionally barred actions based on specified prior public disclosures. See <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A) (2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, even under the 2010 amendments, which changed public disclosure to a defense, see <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A) (2019), the court found the action barred, Valeant<\/em>, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548, at *22. Both pre- and post-2010, the bar is triggered when (1) the disclosure occurred in one of the statutorily specified fora,3<\/a><\/sup> (2) the disclosure was \u201cpublic,\u201d and (3) \u201cthe relator\u2019s action is substantially similar to the allegations or transactions publicly disclosed.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *21(citing United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co.<\/em>, 816 F.3d 565, 570, 573 (9th Cir. 2016)). Under these factors, the court found dismissal warranted. Id. <\/em>at *22 (citing Amphastar Pharms. Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA<\/em>, 856 F.3d 696, 704 (9th Cir. 2017) (in near-identical circumstances, dismissing a complaint based on the pre-2010 public disclosure bar)). Here, the court found, the complaint \u201cadd[ed] nothing to the PTAB\u2019s findings except the bare assertion that defendants \u2018intentionally withheld [prior art] from the Patent Office,\u2019 and the inference of an FCA violation.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the court stated, the relator \u201csimply seized upon a favorable patent decision in a case [he had] litigated and added the new punchline of a false claim.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *24. The resulting action was \u201cthe quintessence of the opportunistic and \u2018parasitic\u2019 lawsuit\u201d the public disclosure bar contemplates. Id.<\/em> (quoting Prather v. AT&T, Inc.<\/em>, 847 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2017)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even so, the action could have survived had the relator \u201cplausibly alleged that he was an original source of the disclosed information.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *28. His factually unsupported, \u201cwholly conclusory allegation\u201d in that regard was insufficient. Id. <\/em>Nor did the relatorqualify as an \u201coriginal source\u201d by \u201calleg[ing] \u2018knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions.\u2019\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *30 (quoting 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(B)(2)). Rather, the complaint merely \u201cadd[ed] a few details\u201d to the publicly disclosed information, while making copious allegations about other patents without explaining their relevance to the alleged fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attorney as Relator<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While some courts have broadly questioned the appropriateness of an attorney\u2019s status as relator, see, e.g.<\/em>, United States ex rel. Doe v. John Doe Corp.<\/em>, 960 F.2d 318, 319 (2d Cir. 1992) (on dismissing action under public disclosure bar, mentioning but not analyzing \u201c[e]thical implications\u201d of attorney\u2019s bringing qui tam <\/em>based on information learned while representing client in fraud case), the Valeant <\/em>court was more explicit about its ethical concerns: \u201cAllowing a lawyer to qualify as an original source based on information a client paid him to obtain,\u201d the court warned, \u201ccould incentivize lawyers to keep an eye out for [a possible] personal bounty under the FCA\u201d instead of focusing exclusively on the lawyer\u2019s duties towards his client. Id. <\/em>at *30 (citing United States ex rel. Fine v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.<\/em>, 72 F.3d 740, 745 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, the court declined to deem the relator to have made \u201cvoluntary disclosure[s]\u201d to the government, when \u201cthe very terms of his employment\u201d as an attorney for the generics manufacturer challenging the \u2018688 patent \u201ccompelled [the attorney] to disclose the fraud.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *29\u201330 (citing Fine<\/em>, 72 F.3d at 741; Prather<\/em>, 847 F.3d at 1107\u201308).4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Patent 8,865,688, also referred to as \u201cthe \u2018688 patent,\u201d was issued in 2014. Valeant<\/em>, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548, at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> The term \u201ccomplaint\u201d as used in this article refers to the relator\u2019s Corrected First Amended Complaint (referred to as \u201cCFAC\u201d in district court\u2019s opinion), filed in October 2018, which was the operative complaint at the time of the court\u2019s decision. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> The court gave short shrift to relator\u2019s argument that under the plain language of the statute, \u201cthe PTAB is not an enumerated fora\u201d and therefore the public disclosure bar was not triggered. See Valeant<\/em>, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85248, at *24\u201325. The court acknowledged that the \u201cfirst channel,\u201d involving \u201ca Federal criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party,\u201d was inapplicable to the PTAB. Id. <\/em>at *25 (quoting \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A)(i)). The court explained, however, that \u201cthe second channel\u201d, barring \u201cthe use of substantially similar allegations or transactions disclosed \u2018in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation,\u2019\u201d did apply. Id. <\/em>(quoting \u00a7 3730(e)(4)(A)(ii)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> The court also questioned the appropriateness of \u201callow[ing] [the lawyer] to appropriate an FCA claim from an underlying case, in lieu of the client who paid for the work.\u201d  Valeant<\/em>, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548, at *30.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam lawsuit the court found was based largely on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision and thus violated the public disclosure bar. No. 3:18-cv-01496-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82548,\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[7],"class_list":["post-6216","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-analysis"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCourt Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 - Dinsmore & Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore & Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-21T21:29:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/\",\"name\":\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 - Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-28T16:42:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-21T21:29:55+00:00\",\"description\":\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png\",\"width\":920,\"height\":307},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 - Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019","og_description":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-11-21T21:29:55+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/","name":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 - Dinsmore & Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png","datePublished":"2020-05-28T16:42:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-21T21:29:55+00:00","description":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019 Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/pharma-web-hero.png","width":920,"height":307},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/court-tosses-patent-attorneys-qui-tam-based-on-patent-appeal-board-decision-calls-it-quintessential-parasitic-lawsuit\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court Tosses Patent Attorney\u2019s Qui Tam Based on Patent Appeal Board Decision, Calls it Quintessential \u2018Parasitic Lawsuit\u2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61582,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/6216\/revisions\/61582"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6216"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=6216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}