Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Actavis (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Copyright troll (1)
- Drugs (1)
- FTC (1)
-
- Hatch-Waxman (1)
- Innovation (1)
- Internet Service Providers (1)
- John Doe lawsuits (1)
- Joinder (1)
- Licencing (1)
- Licensing (1)
- Limited ownership interest (1)
- Multi-defendant law suits (1)
- Paragraph IV (1)
- Patent (1)
- Patents (1)
- Pay for delay (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Red Wing Shoe (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Reverse payment (1)
- Settlement (1)
- Statutory damages (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court considered "reverse payment" settlements of patent infringement litigation. In such a settlement, a patentee pays the alleged infringer to settle, and the alleged infringer agrees not to enter the market for a period of time. The Court held that a reverse payment settlement violates antitrust law if the patentee is paying to avoid competition. The core insight of Actavis is the Actavis Inference: a large and otherwise unexplained payment, combined with delayed entry, supports a reasonable inference of harm to consumers from lessened competition.
This paper is an effort to assist courts …
Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, Matthew Sag
Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, Matthew Sag
Faculty Articles
This Article proceeds as follows: Part II locates MDJD suits within the broader context of the IP troll debate. It explains why attempts to define copyright trolls in terms of status—i.e., in terms of the plaintiff’s relationship to the underlying IP—are ultimately flawed and suggests a conduct-focused approach based on identifying systematic opportunism. Part II explains why MDJD lawsuits have all of the hallmarks of copyright trolling, and it explores the basic economics of MDJD litigation. It then presents empirical data documenting the astonishing rise of MDJD lawsuits over the past decade. Part III explores the role of statutory damages …
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Scholarly Articles
The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.