In In re Cipro Cases I & II, 200 Cal. App. 4th 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (No. D056361), the California Court of Appeal held that, even with a “reverse payment,” settlement of a lawsuit to enforce a patent does not violate the Cartwright Act if the settlement restrains competition only within the scope of the patent, unless the patent was procured by fraud or the suit for its enforcement was objectively baseless. That holding followed the Second Circuit’s decision in the federal Cipro litigation, Arkansas Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 604 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2010). The California court further concluded that plaintiffs’ claim that the patentholder’s infringement suit was objectively baseless due to its inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is preempted by federal patent law. The plaintiffs’ right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, i.e., whether there was inequitable conduct in the procurement of the patent.