Federal Circuit Lacks Jurisdiction Over Standalone Antitrust Claim Concerning An Unenforceable Patent

Knobbe Martens

Knobbe Martens


Before Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a standalone Walker Process antitrust claim concerning an unenforceable patent because such a cause of action does not inherently present a substantial issue of patent law.

Chandler asserted a Walker Process antitrust claim against Phoenix alleging that by listing a patent on Phoenix’s website after the Federal Circuit held it was unenforceable, Phoenix was continuing to enforce this patent. Despite the fact that a Walker Process claim requires, inter alia, proving that the antitrust-defendant obtained the patent by knowing and willful fraud on the patent office and maintained and enforced the patent with knowledge of the fraudulent procurement, the Federal Circuit held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Chandler’s appeal. The Federal Circuit explained that although Walker Process antitrust claims may relate to patents in the colloquial use of the term, the appellate court’s jurisdiction over cases arising under patent law only extends to those cases where (1) federal patent law creates the cause of action or (2) the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law. The Federal Circuit concluded that, here, neither prong was met. For example, federal patent law did not create the cause of action because Chandler’s allegations arose under the Sherman Act. Additionally, the Federal Circuit explained that Chandler failed to raise any federal patent law question, let alone a substantial question of federal patent law, that had not already been addressed in the previous Federal Circuit case holding the patent-at-issue unenforceable. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and transferred the case to the regional circuit.

Editor: Paul Stewart

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens

Knobbe Martens on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.