Courts Commons^™

Combatting The Opioid Epidemic In Texas By Holding Big Pharma Manufacturers Liable, Katherine Spiser

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Platforms, American Express, And The Problem Of Complexity In Antitrust, Chris Sagers

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Everything about Ohio v. American Express was wrong and the adoption of “two-sided platform” reasoning into American antitrust law might be one of its worst, most regrettable wrong turns in decades. That is not because the original theoretical model of two-sided interaction has anything wrong with it at all. It is rather that nothing could be gained by incorporating it that could be worth the result in the American Express case itself, or the difficulty that has likely been invited into antitrust litigation. The consequences are hard to predict, but they may be severely limiting to our already moribund antitrust …

Copyright Arbitrage, Kristelia A. García

Publications

Regulatory arbitrage—defined as the manipulation of regulatory treatment for the purpose of reducing regulatory costs or increasing statutory earnings—is often seen in heavily regulated industries. An increase in the regulatory nature of copyright, coupled with rapid technological advances and evolving consumer preferences, have led to an unprecedented proliferation of regulatory arbitrage in the area of copyright law. This Article offers a new scholarly account of the phenomenon herein referred to as “copyright arbitrage.”

In some cases, copyright arbitrage may work to expose and/or correct for an extant gap or inefficiency in the regulatory regime. In other cases, copyright arbitrage may …

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 …

The Lottery Docket, Daniel Epps, William Ortman

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Trademarks: German Manufacturer’S Deliberate Infringement Of Domestic Trademark Sufficient To Support Injunctive Relief, But Not Supportive Of Award For Damages, Kimley R. Johnson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Proposed Separation Of Powers Restoration Act Goes Too Far, Jack M. Beermann

Shorter Faculty Works

If passed, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act would require federal courts conducting judicial review of agency action to decide “de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules.” Although I have long been highly critical of Chevron, see, e.g., Jack M. Beermann, End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should be Overruled, 42 Conn. L. Rev. 9 (2010), and also have misgivings about Auer deference, I fear that the proposed Act goes too far in completely eliminating deference to agency legal determinations.

The Proper Reach Of Territorial Jurisdiction: A Case Study Of Divergent Attitudes, Robert Y. Jennings

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Deterring Innovation: New York V. Actavis And The Duty To Subsidize Competitors' Market Entry, Joanna Shepherd

Faculty Articles

This Article examines a relatively new business strategy in the pharmaceutical market -- "product hopping" or "product replacement" -- in which brand pharmaceutical companies shift their marketing efforts from a drug nearing the end of its patent period to a new, substitute drug with a longer patent life. In July 2015, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in the first appellate case addressing pharmaceutical product replacement, New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC. This Article explains that product replacement is the predictable business response to the incentives created by patent law and state substitution laws, and withdrawing an …

Switch Hitters: How League Involvement In Daily Fantasy Sports Could End The Prohibition Of Sports Gambling, Jordan Meddy

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Whether in the form of lotto tickets or casino table games, gambling is legally permitted in some way in virtually every U.S. state. Yet, in all but a handful of jurisdictions, federal law prohibits wagering on sporting events or professional athletes in any form. Several economically challenged states, particularly New Jersey, have been trying to authorize sports gambling within their borders as a way to raise tax revenues and support their local gambling industries. While these attempts have thus far been unsuccessful, Daily Fantasy Sports have simultaneously experienced a meteoric rise, becoming a multi-billion dollar industry. This Note examines the …

Inside The Taft Court: Lessons From The Docket Books, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

For many years, the docket books kept by certain of the Taft Court Justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Though the existence of these docket books had been brought to the attention of the scholarly community, access to them was highly restricted. In April of 2014, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers a report and analysis based on a review of all of the Taft Court docket books held by the Office of the Curator, which are the only …

Standing In The Way Of The Ftaia: Exceptional Applications Of Illinois Brick, Jennifer Fischell

Michigan Law Review

In 1982, Congress enacted the Foreign Antitrust Trade Improvements Act (FTAIA) to resolve uncertainties about the international reach and effect of U.S. antitrust laws. Unfortunately, the FTAIA has provided more questions than answers. It has been ten years since the Supreme Court most recently interpreted the FTAIA, and crucial questions and circuit splits abound. One of these questions is how to understand the convergence of the direct purchaser rule (frequently referred to as the Illinois Brick doctrine) and the FTAIA. Under the direct purchaser rule, only those who purchase directly from antitrust violators are typically permitted to sue under section …

Balancing Effects Across Markets, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

In Philadelphia National Bank (PNB), the Supreme Court held that it is improper to weigh a merger's procompetitive effects in one market against the merger's anticompetitive effects in another. The merger in question, which ostensibly reduced retail competition in the Philadelphia area, could not be justified on the grounds that it increased competition against New York banks and hence perhaps enhanced competition in business banking in the mid-Atlantic region. I will refer to the Supreme Court's prohibition on balancing effects across markets as a "market-specificity" rule. Under this rule, efficiencies that may counterbalance anticompetitive aspects must be specific to …

Petitioning Foreign Governments: The Act Of State And Noerr-Pennington Doctrines, Don R. Sampen

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Customs Law, Jennifer Diaz, Brandi B. Frederick, Shannon Fura, Yankun Guo, Jamie Joiner, Greg Kanargelidis, Daniel L. Kiselbach, Ryan Mcclure, Bethany Nelson, Rebecca A. Rodriguez, David Salkeld, Trice Stabler, Cyndee Todgham-Cherniak, Nghia "Neo" T. Tran, George Tuttle Iii, Luis Valdez Jimenez, Vicky Wu

The International Lawyer

This article summarizes important developments in 2014 in customs law, including U.S. judicial decisions, trade, legislative, administrative, and executive developments, as well as Canadian and European legal developments.

How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of …

Conditional Pricing And Monopolization: A Reflection On The State Of Play, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Conditional pricing practices--including bundled discounting, loyalty rebating, and market share discounts--are not new phenomena in the U.S. market. Their potentially exclusionary consequences were raised in antitrust cases decades ago. But unlike trying or exlcusive dealing--which have a rich hsitory of case law and scholarly converage--conditioanl pricing practices did not emerge as salient to the antitrust community until a little over a decade ago. Two federal appellate decisions in the early 2000s--Concord Boar on market share rebates adn LePage's on bundled discounting--sparked a period of intensive interest and activity on these topics in teh antitrust agencies, courts, bench, and legal …

Market Power Without Market Definition, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Antitrust law has traditionally required proof of market power in most cases and has analyzed market power through a market definition/market share lens. In recent years, this indirect or structural approach to proving market power has come under attack as misguided in practice and intellectually incoherent. If market definition collapses in the courts and antitrust agencies, as it seems poised to do, this will rupture antitrust analysis and create urgent pressures for an alternative approach to proving market power through direct evidence. None of the leading theoretic approaches—such as the Lerner Index or a search for supracompetitive profits—provides a robust …

E-Books, Collusion, And Antitrust Policy: Protecting A Dominant Firm At The Cost Of Innovation, Nicholas Timchalk

Seattle University Law Review

Amazon’s main rival, Apple, went to great lengths and took major risks to enter the e-book market. Why did Apple simply choose not to compete on the merits of its product and brand equity (the iPad and iBookstore) as it does with its other products? Why did Apple decide not to continue to rely on its earlier success of situating its products differently in the market than other electronics and working hard to be different and cutting-edge with its e-book delivery? This Note argues that the combination of Amazon’s 90% market share, network externalities, and an innovative technology market creates …

Inevitable Imbalance: Why Ftc V. Actavis Was Inadequate To Solve The Reverse Payment Settlement Problem And Proposing A New Amendment To The Hatch-Waxman Act, Rachel A. Lewis

Seattle University Law Review

The law regarding reverse payment settlements is anything but settled. Reverse payment settlements are settlements that occur during a patent infringement litigation in which a pharmaceutical patent holder pays a generic drug producer to not infringe on the pharmaceutical patent. Despite the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., there are still unanswered questions about how the “full rule of reason” analysis will be applied to reverse payment. This Comment argues that despite the outcome in Actavis, the complex regulatory framework of the Hatch–Waxman Act will create repeated conflicts between antitrust law and patent …

Moving All-In With The World Trade Organization: Ignoring Adverse Rulings And Gambling With The Future Of The Wto, Paul Rothstein

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Judicial Authority In Wto Law: A Commentary On The Appellate Body's Decision In China-Rare Earths, Julia Ya Qin

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.

Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …

Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …

The Arbitration Of Federal Domestic Antitrust Claims: How Safe Is The American Safety Doctrine?, Bruce R. Braun

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Front-Of-Package Nutrition Claims: Trustworthy Facts Or Deceptive Marketing? Closing The Loopholes In Labeling, Kathryn E. Hayes

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that front-of-package (FOP) labeling on children's food products is insufficient and often misleading, failing to meet basic nutritional standards. It advocates for the adoption of uniform, science-based labeling standards developed by an objective body like the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help parents make healthier choices. The analysis highlights the limitations of self-regulation by manufacturers and the need for stronger governmental oversight to address deceptive practices and improve public health outcomes.

Why Can't We Be (F)Rands?: The Effect Of Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory Commitments On Standard-Essential Patent Licensing, Robert D. Keeler

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

This Note explores the effect of a patent holder's reasonable and non-discriminatory ("RAND") commitments to standard-setting organizations on their patent claims which are declared "standard-essential" by the standard-setting organization. It also analyzes the current standard-essential patent ("SEP") licensing system used by the majority of standard-setting organizations around the world and proposed modifications thereto.

This Note looks toward the current case of Microsoft v. Motorola Mobility, the recent Google Settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), and various calls for reform from other areas of the government. The Note concludes that it appears that we are moving toward a system in …

Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …