United States Ex Rel. Lisitza v. Johnson & Johnson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting defendant’s invocation of safe harbor provisions because “[w]hile the raw amounts of the rebates may have been disclosed, the terms and conditions of their payment were not”
• finding a claim “sufficiently pled” where it “specifies the relevant time period (1999-2004)
• “The court agrees that, for purposes of prior disclosure, specifying a formulaic drug as part of a kickback scheme is synonymous with naming the company that produces it.”
• “Only when an earlier filed suit has named a member of the same corporate family are courts inclined to find generic allegations sufficient to put the government on notice of a fraudulent scheme involving a specific defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).