How Direct Purchasers Fit Into Walker Process Landscape

This article discusses the background of the Federal Circuit’s holding in Ritz Camera and how direct-purchaser litigation may fit into the Walker Process landscape.

January 16, 2013

Law360, New York (January 16, 2013, 12:06 PM ET) -- More than 45 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Walker Process Equipment Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.,[1] that a patent holder who acquires a patent through intentional fraud can be held liable under the antitrust laws. Since that landmark ruling, competitors in patent cases have frequently asserted Walker Process claims, seeking an affirmative recovery for harm caused by patents acquired through fraud and/or inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

All Content © 2003-2013, Portfolio Media, Inc.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Christopher K. Larus

Partner

Chair, National IP and Technology Litigation Group

Related Publications

September 28, 2021
Briefly: Federal appeals: How much notice is enough?
Stephen Safranski and Geoffrey Kozen - Minnesota Lawyer
Summer 2021
IATL President's Letter on Judicial Security
Roman Silberfeld - The Robins Kaplan Quarterly: Tackling Tough Business Litigation Matters
July 15, 2021
Biotechnology & Trade Secret Protection
Sharon Roberg-Perez, David Prange, Ellen Levish - Bloomberg Law
June 8, 2021
Written Description in the Life Sciences: The Devil is in the Details
Sharon Roberg-Perez, William Jones - IPWatchdog
May 5, 2021
Bio-Rad Ruling Highlights IP Assignment Clause Limits
Bryan J. Vogel, Derrick J. Carman - Law360
Back to Top