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
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.