Giuliano

Giuliano v. SanDisk Corp.

Good Law
224 F. Supp. 3d 851·2016 WL 7799634·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77962
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 29, 2016Case No: C 10-2787 SBACalifornia9,634 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs, Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee to the Ritz Estate; CPM Electronics, Inc. (“CPM”), E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. (“ESE”); and Mflash, Inc. (“Mflash”), bring the instant antitrust class action against SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”), pursuant to § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 . They allege that San-Disk fraudulently obtained two patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in order to monopolize the market for NAND flash memory. This type of antitrust claim is commonly referred to as a Walker Process claim, named for the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 , 86 S.Ct. 347 , 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965).

The parties are presently before the Court on SanDisk’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Ryan Sullivan. Dkt. 312, 313. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with these matters and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS San-Disk’s motion for summary judgment. Be *855 cause the Court’s ruling is not dependent on the opinions of Dr.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.