This article is part of a Chronicle. See more from this Chronicle
Aidan Synnott, Nov 29, 2008
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.