Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 JULY 2026

Fight Over "Sham Litigation" Will Proceed

Dechert
Dechert
Contributor
Dechert

Dechert

Dechert helps business leaders lead For more than 150 years, we’ve advised the innovators who move...

View firm profile
Explore more from Dechert

According to a recent Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision, attorneys alleged to have directed medical providers to manufacture fraudulent evidence cannot claim Petition Clause immunity.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Key Takeaways

According to a recent Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision, attorneys alleged to have directed medical providers to manufacture fraudulent evidence cannot claim Petition Clause immunity. Uber v. Simon & Simon ruled that Noerr-Pennington does not shield pre-filing fabrication of evidence that is actionable as fraud, a pattern of filings pursued without regard to merit, or misrepresentations that infect the core of underlying claims—and it does not protect the attorneys and conspirators alleged to have orchestrated such claims.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently permitted Uber and FedEx’s RICO suit against a plaintiff personal injury law firm and its affiliated doctors to proceed, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss which sought immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Uber Techs., Inc. v. Simon & Simon, P.C., No. 25-5365, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103792, at *14 (E.D. Pa. 2026).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from