Background

• Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, a direct purchaser, sues SanDisk in a Sherman Act §2 case alleging Walker Process fraud in procuring patents central to NAND flash memory.
• SanDisk allegedly controlled about three-quarters of the NAND flash memory market and licenses its patents to others.
• Ritz alleges SanDisk fraudulently procured U.S. Patents 5,172,338 and 5,991,517 by nondisclosure of prior art and misrepresentations to the PTO.
• Ritz seeks antitrust relief for monopoly maintenance and inflated prices resulting from SanDisk’s allegedly fraudulent patent claims.
• The district court held Ritz had standing to bring a Walker Process claim as a direct purchaser, despite Ritz lacking a patent-declaratory-judgment option; the appeal questions this standing.
• The Supreme Court’s Walker Process decision allows a fraudulently procured patent to underpin an antitrust claim, not a patent invalidity action; the court must decide if direct purchasers may sue without declaratory judgment eligibility.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1965) (fraud in patent procurement can support antitrust liability; patent validity challenges remain separate from antitrust claims)
• Hydril Co. v. Grant Prideco LP, 474 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (declines to apply patent-validity declaratory-judgment standing limits to Walker Process claims)
• In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 585 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2009) (direct purchasers may have standing to pursue Walker Process claims; distinctions from declaratory judgments)
• Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, GmbH, 556 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (Walker Process standing allowed despite patent status in other contexts)