[JURIST] The Supreme Court [official website] heard arguments in two cases Tuesday. The first, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby [transcript, PDF], involves the False Claims Act [31 USC § 3729] seal requirement. Under the False Claims Act, a “relator” with knowledge of fraud in government contracts to file a suit against the contractor. When suit is filed, the federal government may elect to take control of the litigation, but will want to without the contractor becoming aware of the investigation. For that reason, the False Claims Act contains a requirement that all complaints be made under seal. In this case, the relators, including Cori Rigsby, failed to file the complaint against State Farm [official website] under seal. The complaint alleged that State Farm misclassified wind damage as flood damage in the aftermath of Hurricane Karina, allowing State Farm compensation under the federal flood-insurance program. Both the district court and appeals court refused to dismiss [opinion, PDF] the complaint despite State Farm’s urging, which argued that the statutory language requiring seal is mandatory.

The second, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC [argument transcript], involves the application of the defense of laches [35 USC § 282] to patent infringement. The defense of laches claims essentially that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in filing suit. In SCA Hygiene, the defendant, who is accused of infringing on a patented adult hygiene product design, is attempting to use the defense of laches despite the plaintiff filing suit within the six-year statute of limitations. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed [opinion, PDF] the lower court’s ruling and found in the defendant’s favor, stating that “[w]e conclude that Congress codified a laches defense… that may bar legal remedies. Accordingly, we have no judicial authority to question the law’s propriety.”