Title: In Light of Nobelpharma AB V. Implant Innovations, Inc., Should Walker Process Claims Be Treated as Compulsory or Permissive Counterclaims to Patent Infringement Litigation
Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a compulsory counterclaim as any counterclaim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.1 Accordingly, after a claim has been brought against a defendant, the defendant must plead as a compulsory counterclaim any claim has against the plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as that which gave rise to the plaintiff's claim. Otherwise the defendant forever loses his ability to assert that claim in a future judicial proceeding.2 To determine if the counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence, a court will decide if a logical relationship exists between the claims and if a common set of facts and evidence will be necessary to evaluate the merits of both claims.3 By following Rule 13 and applying the logical relationship test, the Second Circuit barred an antitrust suit that was based on the enforcement of an invalid patent and filed two years after summary judgment was issued in a patent infringement case concerning the same patent. The court found the antitrust claim to be compulsory to the earlier litigation.4 Despite a logical relationship or similarities in the facts, evidence, and issues between a patent infringement suit and its companion antitrust counterclaim, not all of the regional circuits have treated this compulsory/permissive issue in the same way; some courts have found a judicially created exception to Rule 13 that only occurs in patent law.5 Some courts believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that antitrust counterclaims to patent infringement suits should always be considered permissive counterclaims and thus allowed in subsequent IMAGE FORMULA6 proceedings.6 This exception may have had shaky support in the past; however, in light of recent cases redefining the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, this exception should be reevaluated and forever closed. Specifically, this Note examines whether Walker Process counterclaims to patent infringement litigation should be considered compulsory or, instead, be subject to a judicially created exception to Rule 13. In order to do so, Part II of this Note probes the common origins of the Walker Process counterclaim and inequitable conduct. Part III briefly discusses the jurisprudence of Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part IV examines Mercoid Corp. v. MidContinent Investment Co.,7 the Supreme Court decision cited by many courts as creating a judicial exception to Rule 13 for antitrust counterclaims. Part V addresses the viability of this exception in light of modern case law regarding Walker Process claims and whether this exception should remain intact today. Finally, Part VI explores the practical and strategic uses of a Walker Process claim. II. THE RAMIFICATIONS OF FRAUD UPON THE PATENT OFFICE A. Inequitable Conduct A high burden of frankness is placed upon any individual associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent because of the ex parte nature of patent prosecution.8 Any applicant, his attorney, or his assignee has a duty of candor and good faith when dealing with the Patent Office and is required to disclose to the Patent Office any known information that may be material to the invention's patentability.9 A violation of this duty of disclosure or a fraud upon the Patent Office will foreclose the possibility of receiving a patent.10 As a disincentive for shirking this duty, infringement defendants are allowed access to an inequitable conduct defense.11 IMAGE FORMULA12 The guiding doctrine of inequitable conduct is the maxim he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.12 Any willful act or omission by an individual involved in the filing or prosecution of a patent that transgresses equitable standards of conduct gives rise to an inequitable conduct defense. …
Publication Year: 2003
Publication Date: 2003-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot