276.2 - Antitrust and IP (Sp08)

Meeting Time:
Monday 5:20 – 7:10 pm

Meeting Location:
Boalt 122

Lecturer:
Samuel R. Miller
Sidley Austin LLP
555 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415-772-7447
Facsimile: 415 772 7400
e-mail: srmiller@sidley.com

Class Schedule:

January 14	Introduction and discussion of whether intellectual property laws and antitrust laws are complementary or are in conflict
Session 1	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 Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Recent Developments in Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law“, dated May 16, 2007
January 21	Recent Antitrust Complaints
Session 2	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.) The FTC Complaint in the matter of Whole Foods Market, Inc. v. Wild Oaks Markets, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9324
January 28	The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part I
Session 3	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 4	The Microsoft antitrust cases – Part II
Session 4	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) Bristol Technology, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 42 F.Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 1998) Review of the Final Judgments by the United States and New York Group in US v. Microsoft, dated August 31, 2007 Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Thomas O. Barnett, “Issues Statement on European Microsoft Decision”, Sept. 17, 2007
February 11	Litigation of intellectual property rights and “sham” litigation
Session 5	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) Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corp. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 61964 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2007)
February 18	The “essential facilities” doctrine and refusals to deal
Session 6	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) Covad Communications Company v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 398 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
February 25	Antitrust Issues involving intellectual property standards
Session 7	Reading : In the Matter of Rambus, FTC Docket No. 9302, Opinion, dated August 2, 2006 In re: Dell Computer, 121 FTC 616, 1996 FTC LEXIS 291 (1996) DOJ Business Review Letter and Press Release regarding Patent Policy of VITA, dated October 30, 2006 Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21092 (3rd Cir. September 4, 2007) Gerald F. Masoudi, “Antitrust Enforcement and Standard Setting: The Vita and IEEE Letters and the ‘IP2’ Report“, dated May 10, 2007
March 3	Licensing Issues in the U.S. and the EU
Session 8	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, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, June 3, 2005 “Reflections on the DG Competition Discussion Paper“, J. Thomas Rosch, FTC Commission DG Competition Discussion Paper on Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses, dated Dec. 2006
March 10	Tying, Bundling, and Package Licensing
Session 9	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) Decision in Tucker v. Apple Computer, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 96343 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
March 17	Cross-licensing and patent pooling
Session 10	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 26-30	No Class – SPRING BREAK
March 31	Merger enforcement in technology markets
Session 11	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” DOJ/FTC Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (March 2006)
April 8	Antitrust issues in settling intellectual property; the pharmaceutical cases
Session 12	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) Leibowitz, “Excluson Payments to Settle Pharmaceutical Patent Cases”, dated April 24, 2006 FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, “FTC Litigation at the Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface“, dated April 26, 2007
April 13 & 20	Student presentations