DATE

SUBJECT MATTER AND READINGS

08/17/09

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)
  
• DOJ/FTC Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (2007) (Read introduction, pages 1 – 13)

• 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)
• Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, “A Government Perspective on IP and Antitrust Law”, dated June 21, 2006
  

08/24/09

Session
2

Recent Antitrust Complaints and Pleadings

Reading :

• Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. Co-5-337 (N.D. Cal.); (Complaint; Briefs on Motions to Dismiss; and Order on Motion to Dismiss)
• U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 (D.D.C.) (Complaint)

• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. V. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 5-441 (D. Del.) (Complaint)
• Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-33501 (D.N.J.) (Complaint)
• The FTC Complaint in the matter of Whole Foods Market, Inc. v. Wild Oaks Markets, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9324
  

8/31/09

Session
3

The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part I

Reading :

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

9/14/09

Session
4

The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part II

Reading :

• Final Judgment, US v. Microsoft, Civil Action Wo. 98-1232. entered November 12, 2002
• Review of the Final Judgments by the United States and New York Group in US v. Microsoft, dated August 31, 2007
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corporation, 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

• Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Thomas O. Barnett, "Issues Statement on European Microsoft Decision”, Sept. 17, 2007
• Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett, “Section 2 Remedies: What to Do After Catching a Tiger by the Tail,” June 4, 2008
  

09/28/09

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)
• In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
• Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 552 F.3d 1033, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 584 (9th Cir. 2009)
  

10/05/09

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)
• In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 274 F. Supp. 2nd 743 (D. Md. 2003)

• Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson, Jonathan Hooks, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under U.S. Antitrust Law,” 70 Antitrust L.J. 443 (2002)

10/12/09

Session
7

Antitrust Issues involving intellectual property standards

Reading :

• Qualcomm, Inc. v Broadcom, 548 F.2d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
• Rambus, Incorporated v. Federal Trade Commission, 522 F. 3d456, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8662 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
• Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21092 (3rd Cir. September 4, 2007)
• Gerald F. Masoudi, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Antitrust Enforcement and Standard Setting”, dated May 10, 2007
• DOJ Business Review Letter and Press Release regarding Patent Policy of VITA, dated October 30, 2006

• In the Matter of Negotiated Data Solutions, (FTC file no. 051-0094)
• Special Verdict Form in Hynix v. Rambus, Case No. 5:00-cv-20905 (N.D. Cal., docket number 3613)
  

10/19/09

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
• “Competition and Intellectual Property in the U.S.: Licensing Freedom and the Limits of Antitrust”, R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, June 3, 2005

• European Commission - DG Competition Discussion Paper on Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses, dated Dec. 2006
• "Reflections on  the DG Competition Discussion Paper", J. Thomas Rosch, FTC Commission
• “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
  

10/26/09

Session
9

Tying, Bundling, and Package Licensing

Reading :

• Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8668 (2007)
• 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)

11/02/09

Session
10

Cross-licensing and patent pooling

Reading :

• Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 563 F. 3d 1301, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8230 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
• 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
  

11/09/09

Session
11

Merger enforcement in technology markets

Reading :

• 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”
• FTC v. Ovation Pharmaceuticals, News Release and Complaint
• Materials relating to proposed Google/Yahoo transction (to be provided)

• DOJ/FTC Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (March 2006)
  

11/16/09

Session
12

Antitrust issues in settling intellectual property litigation; 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)

• Statement of Richard A. Feinstein, Director of Bureau of Competition,
  Federal Trade Commission, entitled “Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay
  Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Why Consumers and the
  Federal Government Are Paying Too Much for Prescription Drugs”,
  submitted June 3, 2009 to the Subcommittee on the Courts and
  Competition, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives
• FTC v. Cephalon, Inc. No. 08-cv-2141 (E.D. Pa. complaint filed Feb. 13,
  2008) FTC brief in opposition to motion to dismiss
  

11/23/09

Session
13

Student presentations