ip misuse and antitrust law eugene l. chang january 9, 2009
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW
Eugene L. Chang
January 9, 2009
![Page 2: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Competition vs. Innovation:Finding The Right Balance
Patent Laws Promote Innovation And Encourage Public Disclosure
Antitrust Laws Maximize Consumer Welfare By Promoting Competition
Both Patent Law And Antitrust Law Seek To Prevent Harm Caused By Invalid Patents Or Improper Extension Of Valid
Patents
![Page 3: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Antitrust Law Is . . .
Sherman Act § 1 - Bars Unreasonable Agreements In Restraint Of Trade
Sherman Act § 2 - Prohibits Monopolization (Acquisition Or Maintenance Of Market Power Through Exclusionary Conduct)
Clayton Act § 7 - Prohibits Acquisitions That Will Reduce Competition Or Create A Monopoly
Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 - Prohibits Unfair Methods Of Competition And Unfair Or Deceptive Trade Practices
![Page 4: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Antitrust Law Is . . . (Continued)
Some Activities Are Illegal Per Se (E.g., Horizontal Price Fixing)
Others Evaluated Under Rule Of Reason Examine Whether Restraint Is Likely To Have
Anticompetitive Effects If So, Examine Whether The Restraint Is Reasonably
Necessary To Achieve Procompetitive Benefits That Outweigh Those Anticompetitive Effects
Most Arrangements Involving IP Are Evaluated Under The Rule Of Reason
![Page 5: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
DOJ GUIDELINES (1995)Underlying Principles
LICENSING ARRANGEMENTS GENERALLY ARE PROCOMPETITIVE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS COMPARABLE TO ANY OTHER FORM OF PROPERTY
IP NOT PRESUMED TO CREATE MARKET POWER*
MARKET POWER = ABILITY TO PROFITABLY MAINTAIN PRICES ABOVE, OR OUTPUT BELOW, COMPETITIVE LEVELS FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD
![Page 6: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
ANALYTICAL TOOLS
PER SE RULE v. RULE OF REASON
HORIZONTAL v. VERTICAL RESTRAINTS
![Page 7: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
PER SE “PLUS”
DOJ will challenge under per se rule if:
“THERE IS NO EFFICIENCY-ENHANCING INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND IF THE TYPE OF RESTRAINT IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN ACCORDED PER SE TREATMENT.”
![Page 8: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
DOJ GUIDELINES
IN GENERAL, LICENSING ARRANGEMENTS PROMOTE SUCH EFFICIENCY-ENHANCING INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITY
LICENSES FACILITATE THE COMBINATION OF COMPLEMENTARY FACTORS
![Page 9: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RULE OF REASON
1) RESTRAINT IS LIKELY TO HAVE ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS
AND, IF SO,
2) IS RESTRAINT “REASONABLY NECESSARY” TO ACHIEVE BENEFITS THAT OUTWEIGH THOSE EFFECTS
![Page 10: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
DOJ GUIDELINESANTITRUST CONCERNS
HARMING COMPETITION AMONG COMPETITORS IN A RELEVANT MARKET
RESTRAINTS AMONG ENTITIES IN A “HORIZONTAL RELATIONSHIP”
CLASSICAL CONCERNS: MARKET DIVISION PRICE FIXING
![Page 11: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DOJ GUIDELINESMarket Analyses
GOODS MARKETS
TECHNOLOGY MARKETS (I.P.)
INNOVATION MARKETS (R&D)
![Page 12: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
THE NINE NO-NO’sLicensing Provisions to Watch For
1. TIE-INS
![Page 13: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
TIE-INS
DOES A PATENT GIVE RISE TO MARKET POWER IN “TYING PRODUCT”?
International Salt (1942) – Market power in patented tying product is presumed
Independent Ink (2006)– Market power in patented tying product must be
proven
![Page 14: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
U.S. v. MICROSOFT
RULE OF REASON ANALYSIS PLATFORM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
“FIRST CLOSE-UP LOOK AT THE TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION OF ADDED FUNCTIONALITY INTO SOFTWARE THAT SERVES AS A PLATFORM FOR THIRD-PARTY APPLICATIONS
![Page 15: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
U.S. v. MICROSOFT
“NOT ALL TIES ARE BAD” SPELL CHECKERS IN WORD PROCESSORS
JEFFERSON PARISH SEPARATE PRODUCTS TEST A “POOR PROXY”
“UBIQUITY” OF BUNDLING IN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
NEW EFFICIENCIES MAY EXIST IN MARKET
![Page 16: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
THE NINE NO-NO’sLicensing Provisions to Watch For
1. TIE-INS
2. GRANTBACKS
3. RESALE RESTRICTIONS
4. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM TO DEAL OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PATENT
5. LICENSEE VETO OVER OTHER LICENSES
![Page 17: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
THE NINE NO-NO’sLicensing Provisions to Watch For
1. MANDATORY PACKAGE LICENSING
![Page 18: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Philips v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Patent Pool Allegedly Contained Essential And Nonessential Patents
No Finding Of Patent Misuse
– Licensees Were Not Being Charged For Nonessential Patents
– Licensees Were Not Forced To Use The Nonessential Technology, Unlike “Patent-To-Product” Tying
![Page 19: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
THE NINE NO-NO’sLicensing Provisions to Watch For
1. MANDATORY PACKAGE LICENSING
2. CONDITIONING ROYALTY PAYMENTS ON UNPATENTED ITEMS
3. RESTRICTION ON PRODUCTS MADE BY A PATENTED PROCESS
4. PRICE RESTRICTIONS
![Page 20: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
HATCH-WAXMAN ISSUESSettlements with Generic Drug Cos. GENERAL CONSTRUCT
GENERIC DRUG COMPANY INITIATES PATENT CHALLENGE
SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL, DROPPING PATENT CHALLENGE
GENERIC COMPANY AGREES NOT TO MARKET PRODUCT FOR SOME OR ALL OF REMAINING PATENT TERM
BRAND COMPANY PAYS GENERIC COMPANY
![Page 21: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
HATCH-WAXMAN ISSUESANTITRUST VIOLATION?
YES Cardizem (6th Cir.) Terazosin (S.D. Fla.)
NO Ciprofloxacin (Fed. Cir.) Schering-Plough (11th Cir.) Tamoxifen (E.D.N.Y.) Asahi Glass (E.D. Pa.)
![Page 22: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
HATCH-WAXMAN ISSUESAnalytical Tools
Per se Cardizem
Rule of Reason Ciprofloxacin Existence of patent is important
11th Circuit factors (Terazosin, Schering-Plough) Evaluation of exclusionary scope of patent Evaluation of likely outcome of patent suit Whether settlement represented a reasonable
implementation of patent protections
![Page 23: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
IP - BUYING, HOLDING, SUINGAntitrust Problems?
ACQUISITION OF PATENTS Generally not an antitrust violation
REFUSALS TO LICENSE Intergraph v. Intel In re Independent Svc. Org.
BAD FAITH LITIGATION “Handgards” Actions
WALKER PROCESS CLAIMS
![Page 24: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Noerr-Pennington Immunity
FIRST AMENDMENT IMMUNITY PETITION GOVERNMENT VIA LAWSUIT THAT IS NOT A
“SHAM”
PRE CASE DEFINES SHAM LITIGATION
![Page 25: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
PRE TEST FOR SHAM LITIGATION
OBJECTIVELY BASELESS SUIT
“NO REASONABLE LITIGANT COULD REALISTICALLY EXPECT SUCCESS”
NO SHAM IF SUIT IS “REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO FAVORABLE OUTCOME”
AND
SUBJECTIVE BAD FAITH INTERFERENCE WITH COMPETITOR
![Page 26: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CAFC APPLICATION OF PRE
HANDGARDS – PRE APPLIES Q-PHARMA BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL
WALKER PROCESS - NO PRE Q-PHARMA NOBELPHARMA
![Page 27: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
APPLICATION OF PRE
Pre-Litigation Threats? Yes(?) – 1st, 2d, 5th, 11th Circuits No – 10th Cir. Hydril (Fed. Cir.) – Walker Process claims
Administrative Proceedings? Yes – 2d Cir. Unocal – Yes, if quasi-legislative
“Orange Book” Patent Listings? Yes – Organon (D.N.J.) No – Buspirone (S.D.N.Y.)
Standard-Setting Organizations? No – Rambus (F.T.C.) No – Broadcom (3d Cir.)
![Page 28: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
TRADEMARK ISSUESMISUSE
MISUSE IS A DEFENSE 15 U.S.C. 15 APPLIES EVEN TO INCONTESTABLE REGISTRATIONS
NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR MISUSE
![Page 29: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
TRADEMARK ISSUESTYING
IS THE TIED PRODUCT “ESSENTIAL” TO BE PURCHASED FROM THE TRADEMARK OWNER
NO – CHICKEN DELIGHT COOKING EQUIPMENT, FOOD MIXES,
PACKAGING
YES – BASKING ROBBINS ICE CREAM
![Page 30: IP MISUSE and ANTITRUST LAW Eugene L. Chang January 9, 2009](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022051613/55151e62550346c77d8b50c0/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
COPYRIGHT LAWMISUSE
VALID DEFENSE NAPSTER (9th Cir. 2001) DSC COMM. (Fed. Cir. 1999) LASERCOMB (4th Cir. 1990)
NOT A DEFENSE ALLEN-MYLAND (E.D. Pa. 1990)
– “Most courts” have held it is not a valid defense