Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.
Criminal prosecution
### Criminal prosecution

In *United States v. Union Camp Corp.*, the government brought a criminal case against a company that filed a patent infringement action against another company under a patent that it knew was invalid, because it had publicly sold the patented product more than a year before the filing of the patent application.1969 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,689 (E.D. Va. 1969\) (consent decree). In that case the company's patent counsel warned the company's president of the problem and suggested caution against suing another company that had hired an ex\-employee of the patentee who knew the facts. The company and its officials pleaded *nolo contendere*. For the indictment, see *United States v. Union Camp Corp.*, Crim. Action No. 4558 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 1967\). For the complaint in the related civil action, alleging fraudulent procurement, see *United States v. Union Camp Corp.*, Civ. No. 5005A, (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1968\). The criminal case also involved a mandamus action in the Fourth Circuit. *Union Camp Corp. v. Lewis*, 385 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1967\) (mandamus denied).
  

  The facts concerning this case are summarized in a paper titled *The Antitrust Consequences of Fraudulent Procurement and Enforcement of Patents*, contained in 15  663 (1970\) and in [*Patent Law Revision*](http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent%20Law%20Revision,%20Subcomm.%20%28May%2013,%201971%29.pdf), Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Pursuant to S. Res. 32 on S. 643, S. 1253 and S. 1255, Part 2 and Appendix (May 13, 1971\) at 506\.

It has been suggested that "a conspiracy to procure a patent by means of fraud constitutes, independently of the Sherman Act, a violation of the general federal conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371\)."See *id*. at 507\.

In *United States v. Markham*,[537 F.2d 187](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11849954359299705604&q=%22537+f.2d+187%22&hl=en&as_sdt=20006&as_vis=1) (5th Cir. 1976\). the defendant was indicted and convicted under the federal false statement statute (18 U.S.C. § 1001\) for fraudulent patent procurement—"attempt\[ing] to conceal from the Patent Office the true inventor of the process for which a patent was sought."537 F.2d at 188\-89\. In that case one Klein, a business partner of the defendant Markham, invented a process for building houses. Markham and Klein fell out, and Markham filed a patent application falsely naming two other men as the inventors rather than Klein.537 F.2d at 192\-95\. When the facts eventually came out, Markham was indicted and convicted; the court of appeals affirmed the conviction.537 F.2d at 197\.


What is criminal prosecution?