Third Circuit: Patentee’s intentional falsehood to standards body can support antitrust claim Maybe it's time for Qualcomm to rethink how it approaches standard-setting organizations. In a decision today, the Third Circuit reversed in part a district court's dismissal of rival Broadcom's antitrust claims, finding that Broadcom had adequately pleaded actions by Qualcomm that, if true, would constitute an antitrust violation. The facts of the case are similar […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court: vertical retail price maintenance no longer per se violation of antitrust law Overruling a nearly century old decision, the Supreme Court Thursday held that a manufacturer may, in some instances, enter into a vertical agreement with its retailers to set minimum retail prices for the manufacturer's goods. The court overruled the venerable decision in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. […] Continue Reading →
Dippin’ Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable […] Continue Reading →
Walker Process antitrust claim reinstated: threats to sue competitor’s customers sufficient In Hydril Co. v. Grant Prideco, Inc., the Federal Circuit reinstated a Walker Process antitrust claim the lower court had dismissed. A Walker Process claim can arise when a patent holder, knowing that its patent was obtained through fraud, still attempts to enforce the patent. This type of claim is named after the Supreme Court […] Continue Reading →