## Facts

- An inventor developed titanium dental implants and published a 1977 book describing implants with microscopic surface irregularities (“micropits”) that improved bone integration (osseointegration).
- The inventor later obtained U.S. Patent No. 4,330,891, claiming a titanium dental implant surface with micropits to aid osseointegration.
- The patentee and related companies marketed implants under rights in the patent.
- During prosecution, the patentee did not disclose the 1977 book to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
- Evidence at trial indicated the inventor had a preferred, superior method for producing the micropitted surface at the time of filing, but the patent specification did not disclose key details of that method.
- The patent owner sued a competitor for infringement; the competitor denied infringement and asserted invalidity and unenforceability.
- The competitor also counterclaimed under federal antitrust law, alleging attempted monopolization based on enforcement of a patent procured by knowing and willful fraud on the PTO (Walker Process theory).

## Issues

1. Whether the patent was invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
2. Whether the evidence supported Walker Process antitrust liability based on enforcement of a patent obtained through knowing and willful fraud on the PTO, plus the additional antitrust elements required under § 2 of the Sherman Act.
3. Whether Federal Circuit law or regional circuit law governs the elements of a Walker Process antitrust claim when patent enforcement is the alleged exclusionary conduct.
4. Whether the district court’s management of the proceedings and evidentiary rulings denied the patentee due process.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law that the patent was invalid for failure to disclose the best mode.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict finding antitrust liability under the Walker Process doctrine and affirmed the resulting damages award (including trebling under the Clayton Act).
- The court held that Federal Circuit law governs the patent-law fraud component (fraud on the PTO), while regional circuit law governs the antitrust components (relevant market, market power, dangerous probability, antitrust injury).
- The court rejected the patentee’s procedural and due process challenges, finding no reversible unfairness in the trial’s structure or rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Best-mode invalidity applies when (1) the inventor subjectively contemplated a preferred mode at filing and (2) the specification fails to disclose that mode sufficiently to allow practice of the invention as preferred; clear and convincing evidence can support judgment as a matter of law.
- Walker Process liability may arise under Sherman Act § 2 when a patentee enforces a patent procured by knowing and willful fraud on the PTO, and the claimant also proves the required antitrust elements (including market power and antitrust injury).
- In Walker Process cases, the “fraud on the PTO” element is a patent-law question governed by Federal Circuit standards; the remaining antitrust elements are governed by the applicable regional circuit’s antitrust law.
- Patent enforcement can constitute exclusionary conduct for § 2 purposes when it rests on a fraudulently obtained patent and is used to suppress competition beyond legitimate exclusion rights.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity for failure to disclose best mode and upheld treble-damages antitrust liability where the patentee enforced a patent found to have been procured through knowing and willful deception of the PTO, applying Federal Circuit law to the fraud component and regional circuit law to the antitrust elements.


Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)