In this infringement action involving a patent for magnetic brakes used on roller coaster cars, Judge Stark denied defendants’ motion to add a counterclaim alleging plaintiffs violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The proposed counterclaim rested upon plaintiffs’ actions in threatening and then commencing this infringement action against defendants. The court held, based on the Noerr- Pennington doctrine, that defendants were immune from the claim asserted in the proposed counterclaim. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine generally immunizes a party from suit based upon its actions in threatening or bringing a legal action to assert its patent rights. Although there are exceptions to Noerr-Pennington immunity in cases involving “sham” litigation, or knowing and willful fraud in the procurement of the underlying patent, the court ruled that such exceptions were inapplicable to the facts in this case.