Visiting Judge Pisano denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s antitrust counterclaims. In its counterclaims, defendant alleged that plaintiff perpetrated a fraud on the PTO when it obtained the patents-in-suit. The court concluded that defendant pled its claim of fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9, and found that defendant averred sufficient facts to support its claim that plaintiff violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Those facts included identification of the relevant market, the allegation that plaintiff controlled 50 to 75 percent of the market, and the assertion that plaintiff acquired its market position through improper means.