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

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.

This content is for paid subscriptions only. Click Here to Subscribe

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
 


More Articles More Articles More Articles More Articles More Articles More Articles More Articles More Articles