Chandler v. Phx. Servs.

2 Citing cases

  1. Chandler v. Phx. Servs.

    45 F.4th 807 (5th Cir. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    But the Federal Circuit found the case had no live patent issues—the underlying patent had already been declared invalid—and so transferred the case to us. SeeChandler v. Phoenix Servs. LLC , 1 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

  2. Nat'l Prods. v. Innovative Intelligent Prods.

    C20-428 RAJ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2021)

    Because a Walker Process monopolization claim arises under the Sherman Act (or state antitrust law), and not patent law, it must be evaluated under regional circuit (or state) jurisprudence. See Chandler v. Phoenix Servs. LLC, 1 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (concluding that the Federal Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction as to a standalone Walker Process monopolization claim). Use of a fraudulently-acquired patent constitutes an antitrust violation if the patent was employed to produce (or attempt to produce) monopoly power in a specified market.