Neumann v. Vidal, 710 F.2d 856 (D.C.Cir.1983), on which the district court relied, is not to the contrary. In that case, Neumann, a mechanical engineer, filed a patent application, and began preparations to market his product to the public.
Id. at 858. A former employer sued him, alleging,
inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty, and as a result, potential investors withdrew from Neumann's venture and his patent application suffered procedural delays. Neumann ultimately prevailed in the lawsuit, and then sued the employer for antitrust violations and abuse of process. Ruling that he was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from raising the abuse of process claim, the district court granted summary judgment for the employer.
Id. This court reversed, holding that Neumann was not precluded from raising the abuse of process claim.
Id. at 860–61. The holding in
Neumann, therefore, did not turn on the merits of the abuse of process claim. To the extent that
Neumann may be read as a comment on the merits, it is readily distinguishable from the instant case. In
Neumann, the plaintiff did allege a collateral purpose to the litigation: the alleged goal of the employer's lawsuit was to stifle competition by dissuading third parties from investing in the plaintiff's business venture, and to delay his patent application. Thus, the claim in
Neumann, unlike that in the instant case, involved the type of extortionate activity that the
Restatement and the case law describe.