A U.S. District Court denies a motion to dismiss a fraudulent patent claim and allows standing to a direct purchaser of NAND flash memory (Ritz / SanDisk)

Expanded Standing, or “Back to Basics”? Flash Memory Direct Purchasers Found to Have Standing to Assert Walker Process Claims* In Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, et al., United States District Court, ND Cal., Case No. 5:10-CV02787-JF/HRL, the court denied a motion to dismiss in a Walker Process "fraud on patent office" case, and allowed standing to a direct purchaser. Is this an extension, or is it "business as usual"? A step by step analysis is in order. Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed an action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act alleging that SanDisk Corp., ("SanDisk") and its founder, Harari, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Ritz alleged that SanDisk and Harari conspired to monopolize, and actually monopolized the market for NAND/memory

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, A U.S. District Court denies a motion to dismiss a fraudulent patent claim and allows standing to a direct purchaser of NAND flash memory (Ritz / SanDisk), 24 February 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 66621

Visites 87

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues