Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Dipping Dots--Inequitable But Not Monopolistic

Posted by Shubha Ghosh

Thanks to Dennis Crouch, over at Patently O, for sending my co-blogger a link to his post on the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Dipping Dots.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of noninfringement, obviousness and inequitable conduct, but reversed on the finding of a Walker Process violation.  The appeals court found that the patent defendant failed to meet high standard of materiality required for a Walker Process claim.  The opinion can be downloaded here.  Download DDI.pdf

Overall, the opinion presents the differences between the doctrine of inequitable conduct and Walker Process claim well, avoiding the real risk of turning every case of patent invalidity into an antitrust claim.  Walker Process claims are impossible to prove, and the court's analysis does a good job of explaining why.

On a lighter note,  I am concerned that the finding of obviousness might lead to a proliferation of these frigid treats.  My spouse worked on an arbitration involving DDI when she was in private practice, and one of the rewards of her work was a freezer full of the "ice cream of the future."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2007/02/dipping_dotsine.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d8357494ac69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dipping Dots--Inequitable But Not Monopolistic:

Comments

Post a comment