Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (5)
- Courts (3)
- Business (2)
- Economics (2)
- Industrial Organization (2)
-
- Law and Economics (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (2)
- Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Economic History (1)
- Economic Policy (1)
- Economic Theory (1)
- Entrepreneurial and Small Business Operations (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Public Economics (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Prophylactic Merger Policy, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
An important purpose of the antitrust merger law is to arrest certain anticompetitive practices or outcomes in their “incipiency.” Many Clayton Act decisions involving both mergers and other practices had recognized the idea as early as the 1920s. In Brown Shoe the Supreme Court doubled down on the idea, attributing to Congress a concern about a “rising tide of economic concentration” that must be halted “at its outset and before it gathered momentum.” The Supreme Court did not explain why an incipiency test was needed to address this particular problem. Once structural thresholds for identifying problematic mergers are identified there …
Update On Antitrust And Pay-For-Delay: Evaluating “No Authorized Generic” And “Exclusive License” Provisions In Hatch-Waxman Settlements, Saami Zain
San Diego Law Review
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the United States Supreme Court held that a patent litigation settlement where a branded drug company pays a generic drug company to end the litigation and delay launching its generic may violate the antitrust laws. Although the decision ended years of controversy over whether such settlements were subject to antitrust scrutiny, many issues remain unresolved concerning the lawfulness of these settlements. In particular, courts have struggled in assessing the legality of patent settlements between branded and generic drug manufacturers involving non-cash compensation or benefits. This article discusses one type of non-cash compensation that is …
Taking It To The Limit: Shifting U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standards Development, Jorge L. Contreras
Taking It To The Limit: Shifting U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standards Development, Jorge L. Contreras
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
In November 2017, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, chief of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, gave a speech at University of Southern California provocatively entitled “Take it to the Limit: Respecting Innovation Incentives in the Application of Antitrust Law”. In this speech, Mr. Delrahim announced a new DOJ policy approach to the antitrust analysis of collaborative standard setting and standards-development organizations (SDOs) -- the trade associations and other groups in which industry participants cooperate to develop interoperability standards such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 4G and 5G, USB and the like. He explained that the DOJ had “strayed too …
The Mystery Of Section 253(B), Matthew Gagnier
The Mystery Of Section 253(B), Matthew Gagnier
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review
In 2014, Elon Musk, the renowned and socially-minded CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc., posted a blog on Tesla’s website that stated the company would be freeing up many of its patents involved in the creation of the company’s electric cars to any interested party. Yet again, Musk astounded the public by choosing the betterment of society over corporate profits—stirring up a more positive image than any other corporate personality. But there are numerous questions that Musk’s positive PR have drowned out: Where can you access the patents?; How did freeing up the patents get past the other executive officers and …
The Rule Of Reason, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
The Rule Of Reason, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
Antitrust’s rule of reason was born out of a thirty-year (1897-1927) division among Supreme Court Justices about the proper way to assess multi-firm restraints on competition. By the late 1920s the basic contours of the rule for restraints among competitors was roughly established. Antitrust policy toward vertical restraints remained much more unstable, however, largely because their effects were so poorly understood.
This article provides a litigation field guide for antitrust claims under the rule of reason – or more precisely, for situations when application of the rule of reason is likely. At the time pleadings are drafted and even up …
Reasonable Patent Exhaustion, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Reasonable Patent Exhaustion, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
A lengthy tug of war between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals may have ended when the Supreme Court held that the sale of a patented article exhausts the patentee seller’s rights to enforce restrictions on that article through patent infringement suits. Further, reversing the Federal Circuit, the parties cannot bargain around this rule through the seller’s specification of conditions stated at the time of sale, no matter how clear. No inquiry need be made into the patentee’s market power, anticompetitive effects, or other types of harms, whether enforcement of the condition is socially costly or …