February 17, 2016
Authored and Edited by Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Lauren J. Dreyer
In Transweb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co., No. 14-1646 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that 3M was liable for a Walker Process antitrust violation because it had fraudulently obtained its patent through inequitable conduct and sought to enforce the patent. The court concluded that treble attorneys’ fees can serve as the basis for antitrust damages.
Reviewing the evidence from the district court, the Federal Circuit determined that 3M’s patent was invalid based on Transweb’s prior public distribution of a filter material at a trade show. It also found that 3M obtained its patent through inequitable conduct because the evidence showed that it knew of Transweb’s prior distribution, but did not properly disclose it to the USPTO. The court then determined that 3M’s enforcement of the patent against Transweb constituted a Walker Process antitrust violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act as an abuse of the legal process. It held that Transweb’s attorneys’ fees for defending against 3M’s lawsuit were an appropriate antitrust remedy because they flowed directly from “3M’s unlawful act [of] bringing suit based on a patent known to be fraudulently obtained.” Treble attorneys’ fees were justified because the anticompetitive suit forced Transweb to either cease competition in the market or expend money to defend the suit.
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.