DATE

SUBJECT MATTER AND READINGS

January 12

Session
1

Introduction and discussion of whether intellectual property laws and antitrust laws are complementary or are in conflict

Reading :

• DOJ/FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (1995)
• Robert Pitofsky, “Challenges of the New Economy: Issues at the Intersection of Antitrust and Intellectual Policy,” 68 Antitrust L.J. 913 (2001)
• Richard A. Posner, “Antitrust in the New Economy,” 68 Antitrust L.J. 925 (2001)
• Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Interoperability Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property”, dated Sept. 13, 2006
• Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, “A Government Perspective on IP and Antitrust Law”, dated June 21, 2006
  

January 19

Session
2

Recent Antitrust Complaints

Reading :

• Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. Co-5-337 (N.D. Cal.);
• Order Granting in Part; Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., dated Sept. 9, 2005
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. V. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 5-441 (D. Del.)
• Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-33501 (D.N.J.)
• U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 (D.D.C.)
  

January 26

Session
3

The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part I

Reading :

• U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F.Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 1999)
• U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F.Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)
• U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
  

February 2

Session
4

The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part II

Reading :

• Final Judgment, US v. Microsoft, Civil Action Wo. 98-1232. entered November 12, 2002
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corporation, 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
• Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp, 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003)
• Bristol Technology, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 42 F.Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 1998)
  

February 9

Session
5

Litigation of intellectual property rights and “sham” litigation

Reading :

• Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, 508 U.S. 49 (1993)
• Nobelpharma v. Implant Innovations, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
• Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Elan Corp., 421 F3d. 1227 (11th Cir. 2005)
• In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
  

February 16

Session
6

The “essential facilities” doctrine and refusals to deal

Reading :

• Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)
• In re: ISO Antitrust Litigation, 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
• Kodak v. Image Technical Services, 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)
• Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson, Jonathan Hooks, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under U.S. Antitrust Law,” 70 Antitrust L.J. 443 (2002)
• In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 274 F. Supp. 2nd 743 (D. Md. 2003)
• Telcon Technical Services, Inc. v. Reelcom Office Communications, Inc., 388 F.3d 820 (11th Cir. 2004)
• Covad Communications Company v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 398 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
  

February 23

Session
7

Antitrust Issues involving intellectual property standards

Reading :

• In the Matter of Rambus, FTC Docket No. 9302, Opinion, dated August 2, 2006
• Opinion Granting Motion to Dismiss in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 2006 WL 2528545, (8/31/06 D.N.J.)
• In re: Dell Computer, 121 FTC 616, 1996 FTC LEXIS 291 (1996)
• Mark Lemley, “Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations,” 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1889 (2002)
• DOJ Business Review Letter and Press Release regarding Patent Policy of VITA, dated October 30, 2006
  

March 2

Session
8

Licensing Issues in the U.S. and the EU

Reading :

• Article entitled “Antitrust Pitfalls in Intellectual Property Licensing” by Samuel R. Miller (copy to be provided)
• “The Long and Winding Road: Convergence in the Application of Antitrust to Intellectual Property”, Remarks by Makan Delrahim, Deputy District Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Oct. 6, 2004
• “Forcing Firms to Share the Sandbox: Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights and Antitrust”. Remarks by Makan Delrahim, Deputy District Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, May 10, 2004
• “Competition and Intellectual Property in the U.S.: Licensing Freedom and the Limits of Antitrust”, R. Hewitt Pate, Asst, Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, June 3, 2005
  

March 9

Session
9

Tying, Bundling, and Package Licensing

Reading :

• Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1281, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2024 (U.S. 2006)
• Medtronic Minimed Inc., v. Smiths Medical MD Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 6336 (D. Del 2005)
• LePage’s Incorporated v. 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003)
• U.S. Philips Corporation v. International Trade Commission, 424 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
• U.S. v.Dentsply International, 399 F. 2d 181 (3rd Cir. 2005)
• Allen-Myland, Inc. v. IBM, 33 F 3d 194 (3rd Cir. 1994)
  

March 16

Session
10

Cross-licensing and patent pooling

Reading :

• Business Review Letter involving DVD Licensing (letter from Joel I. Klein to Garrard R. Beeney, dated December 16, 1998 (DVD Business Review Letter no. 1)
• DVD Business Review Letter no. 2 (letter from Joel I. Klein to Carey R. Ramos), dated June 10, 1999 (DVD Business Review Letter No. 2)
• MPEG-2 Business Review Letter (letter from Joel I. Klein to Garrard R. Beeney), dated June 26, 1997
• Summit Technologies/VISX FTC Consent Decree Docket No. 9286
  

March 23

Session
11

Merger enforcement in technology markets

Reading :

• “Antitrust Enforcement Priorities: A Year in Review”, Remarks by Thomas O. Barnett, Deputy District Attorney, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Nov. 19, 2004, (Section IV Merger Enforcement)
• Recent Actions at the Federal Trade Commission, Remarks by Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairmman, FTC, January 18, 2005 (pp. 1-16)
• U.S. v. Oracle Corp., 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
• FTC Materials from Chevron/Unocal Merger, “Dual Consent Orders Resolve Competitive Concerns About Chevron’s $18 Billion Purchase of Unocal, FTC’s 2003 Complaint Against Unocal”
• DOJ/FTC Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (March 2006)
  

March 26-30

No Class – Spring Break

April 6

Session
12

Antitrust issues in settling intellectual property; the pharmaceutical cases

Reading :

• Schering-Plough Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005)
• In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 429 F. 3d 370 (2d. Cir. 2005)
• Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003)
• In Re: Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)
• In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 352 F.Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2005)
• In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5494 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
• Leibowitz, “Excluson Payments to Settle Pharmaceutical Patent Cases”, dated April 24, 2006
  

April 13 & 20

Session
13 & 14

Student presentations