Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

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

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

From Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims?

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Aidan Synnott (Paul, Weiss) ponders From Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims?

ABSTRACT: In In re: DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, decided in 2006, the district court held that direct purchasers of a product from a monopolist which secured its monopoly by fraud on the Patent Office do not have standing to bring a Walker Process claim.

I examine the reasoning behind the decision and conclude that the court’s holding is erroneous. Because direct purchasers can clearly be victims of a monopoly obtained by the enforcement of a fraudulently obtained patent, they should have standing to assert a Walker Process claim.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2008/12/from-walker-pro.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef010536334cc8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference From Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims? :

Comments

Post a comment