United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit alleging malicious prosecution of a patent infringement action and monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) under California law, the defendant did not maliciously prosecute the plaintiff for infringement of a magnetic braking system patent because a reasonable attorney could have concluded that the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. section 102 did not apply to invalidate the patent; and 2) plaintiff failed to establish a causal antitrust injury stemming from the defendant's actions.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/14/2015
• Published 09/14/2015

Judges

• SMITH

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel