Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A California judge dismissed a consumer class action against online DVD rental company Netflix Inc. that accused the company of inflating prices through fraudulently obtained patents, but opened the door to future claims by allowing limited discovery and the option for an amended complaint. In the June 14 dismissal, Judge William Alsup rejected the plaintiffs’ ]antitrust claims because they hadn’t demonstrated that Netflix tried to enforce its patents against rivals. The patent enforcement component is a key part of claims under the Walker Process legal theory, which is based on a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said companies’ enforcement of fraudulently obtained patents could violate Sherman Antitrust Act anti-monopolization rules. In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-00643 (N.D. Calif.). “To plead a claim of Walker Process fraud, plaintiffs must plead that the fraudulently-procured patent was enforced,” wrote Judge Alsup. “Merely procuring a patent by fraud is not sufficient.” Scott A. Kamber of New York-based Kamber & Associates, the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel on the Netflix antitrust case, said the judge’s order took a “pragmatic approach.” “We look forward to seeing the materials that are provided and making a decision based on all information we have available to us,” Kamber said. In the ruling, Judge Alsup said the plaintiffs’ argument that Netflix’s patent infringement lawsuit against Blockbuster deterred other companies from entering the market is not enough to show enforcement. Since the plaintiffs’ complaint noted Amazon.com Inc.’s decision not to enter the U.S. online DVD rental business after an announcement and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s short lived venture into the market, the judge’s discovery order involves those two companies. Judge Alsup ordered Netflix to disclose by July 2 all documents concerning its oral or written communications with Amazon and Wal-Mart about the patents in question from the date they were issued to the date the Netflix complaint was filed. An Amazon.com spokeswoman said the company doesn’t comment on litigation matters. Wal-Mart did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Alsup also said plaintiffs have until July 16 to file an amended complaint. A Netflix lawyer on the antitrust case, Keith Eggleton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, Calif., declined to comment. A company spokesman didn’t return a call requesting a comment on the order.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.