the essential or material elements of a fraud claim against the same defendant described in a prior complaint.” U.S. ex rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir. 2009). Although the Mayes Complaint also identifies BlueWave as a defendant, Riedel provided the Government with information on entirely different fraudulent schemes. No reasonable read ing of the Mayes Complaint would have informed the Government of the need to investigate whether BlueWave was paying speaker’s fees to physicians as a kickback or waiving insurance copays and deductibles. See U.S. ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. CIV.A. 06-3213, 2013 WL 2649704, at *10 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 2013), on reconsideration in part, No. CIV.A. 06-3213, 2013 WL 5924962 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2013) (<HOLDING>). The Government partially intervened regarding
holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that the firsttofile rule did not bar complaint involving same defendants where firstfiled complaint did not put government on notice of a separate fraudulent scheme holding that group pleading did not render complaint infirm where complaint provided fair notice of claims holding that a complaint that fails rule 9b is rendered legally infirm from its inception and thus cannot preempt a laterfiled complaint under the firsttofile bar