Plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, alleged that defendant, a prescription drug manufacturer, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by: (1) obtaining patents through inequitable conduct before the PTO; (2) listing invalid patents in the “orange book” to give rise to claims of patent infringement; and (3) commencing sham patent infringement litigation, thereby triggering an automatic 30-month stay on the final approval of generic drugs by the FDA under the ANDA process established by the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Judge Sleet denied defendant’s motion to dismiss these antitrust claims. For purposes of the motion, the court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s failure to obtain FDA approval of its generic drug resulted from the statutory framework rather than defendant’s conduct. The court also denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s omissions and misrepresentations before the PTO were deliberate, and therefore amounted to Walker Process fraud, which can subject a party to antitrust liability. In an earlier appeal in a related case, the Federal Circuit found that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the same conduct that was in issue here constituted inequitable conduct. That finding further supported denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Finally, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sham litigation claim, because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant’s patent infringement actions against generic manufacturers were objectively baseless, and filed in an effort to maintain defendant’s monopoly in the manufacture and sale of the drug.