Chandler v. Phoenix Services, 45 F.4th 807

Plaintiffs (Chandler group: Chandler Mfg., Newco, Supertherm, and Ronald Chandler) sued Phoenix Services and its CEO Mark Fisher under Walker Process and sham-patent theories, alleging enforcement of a fraudulently procured fracking heater patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,171,993).
The ’993 patent had been issued to Mark Hefley/Heat On-The-Fly (HOTF) in 2012 and was later declared unenforceable by the Federal Circuit in Energy Heating for inequitable conduct (on-sale bar) in 2018.
Phoenix acquired HOTF and the ’993 patent in 2014; plaintiffs allege two anticompetitive acts: (1) a 2013 HOTF cease-and-desist letter to Amerada Hess that allegedly cost Supertherm business, and (2) HOTF’s 2014 infringement suit against Chandler/Newco.
The district court granted summary judgment for Phoenix: found Chandler lacked standing to recover lost profits, found standing only for attorneys’ fees, but held those claims time-barred and denied tolling; also rejected corporate-officer/single-enterprise liability theories.
Chandler appealed to the Federal Circuit, which concluded it lacked jurisdiction (the patent was already ruled unenforceable) and transferred the case to the Fifth Circuit; the Fifth Circuit accepted the transfer as plausible and affirmed the district court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction after transfer	Walker Process raises substantial patent issues; Fifth Circuit precedent (Xitronix II) supports Federal Circuit jurisdiction	The ’993 patent already declared unenforceable; no substantial patent issue — transfer to Fifth Circuit plausible	Transfer was plausible under Christianson; Fifth Circuit accepts jurisdiction and proceeds
Standing for lost profits from Hess business	HOTF’s 2013 cease-and-desist letter materially caused Supertherm to lose Hess work and go out of business	No causal link: Hess continued work, later hired other non-licensed vendors; officer statements are self-serving	No standing for lost profits — plaintiffs failed to show a material causal link
Standing to recover fees from defending infringement suits	Chandler can recover attorneys’ fees spent defending HOTF’s asserted patent	Even if standing exists, claims are barred by statute of limitations	Plaintiffs had standing to seek fees but those claims are time-barred
Statute of limitations / fraudulent-concealment tolling	SOL tolled by fraudulent concealment; plaintiffs lacked knowledge despite prior litigation	Plaintiffs had notice: Energy Heating pleadings and communications put Chandler on inquiry notice; no due diligence excuse	Tolling fails; antitrust claims accrued more than four years before filing and are time-barred

Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) (establishes Walker Process claim for enforcement of fraudulently procured patents under § 2)
Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, 889 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent ’993 held unenforceable for inequitable conduct/on-sale bar)
Chandler v. Phoenix Servs., LLC, 1 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Federal Circuit transferred appeal to Fifth Circuit for lack of substantial patent issue)
Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 916 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2019) (Fifth Circuit holding Walker Process claims raise substantial patent issues ordinarily for Federal Circuit)
Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 882 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Federal Circuit’s transfer reasoning on patent-substantiality jurisdiction)
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (transfer-law-of-the-case and plausibility standard for circuit-to-circuit transfers)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (test for when federal patent issues are sufficiently substantial to require federal jurisdiction)
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (sham-litigation standard for antitrust claims)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969) (antitrust accrual rule and statute-of-limitations principles)
In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 600 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1979) (tolling doctrines and plaintiff’s duty to investigate)