276.2 - Antitrust & IP - Berkeley Law

Meeting Time:
M 5:20-7:10

Meeting Location:
Boalt 122

Lecturer:
Samuel R. Miller
Sidley Austin LLP
555 California St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104

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

Class Schedule:

August 18	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) Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Interoperability Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property”, dated Sept. 13, 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 Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, “A Government Perspective on IP and Antitrust Law”, dated June 21, 2006 Supplemental Reading : Richard A. Posner, “Antitrust in the New Economy,” 68 Antitrust L.J. 925 (2001)
August 25	Recent Antitrust Complaints
Session 2	Reading : Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. Co-5-337 (N.D. Cal.); and Order Motion to Dismiss Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. V. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 5-441 (D. Del.) U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 (D.D.C.) Supplemental Reading : Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-33501 (D.N.J.) Whole Foods Market, Inc. v Wild Oats Market, Inc., FTC Case No. 9324 (Filed June 27, 2007)
September 1	LABOR DAY – NO CLASS
September 8	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)
September 15	The Microsoft Antitrust Cases – Part II
Session 4	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, dated August 30, 2007 (D.D.C.) Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corporation, 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Supplemental Reading : 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
September 22	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)
September 29	FALL FLYBACK WEEK – NO CLASS
October 6	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) In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 274 F. Supp. 2nd 743 (D. Md. 2003) Supplemental Reading : Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson, Jonathan Hooks, “The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under U.S. Antitrust Law,” 70 Antitrust L.J. 443 (2002) Covad Communications Company v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 398 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
October 13	Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property Standards
Session 7	Reading : Rambus, Incorporated v. Federal Trade Commission, 522 F.3d 456, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8662 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21092 (3d Cir. Sept. 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 Rambus, FTC Docket No. 9302, Opinion, dated August 2, 2006 In re: Dell Computer, 121 FTC 616, 1996 FTC LEXIS 291 (1996)
October 20	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 “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 Supplemental Reading : European Commission – “DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the treaty to exclusionary abuses”, December 2005 J. Thomas Rosch, FTC Commissioner, “Reflections on the DG Competition Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 to the Exclusionary Abuses,” May 11, 2006 “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
October 27	Tying, Bundling, and Package Licensing
Session 9	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)
November 3	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
November 10	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” Supplemental Reading : DOJ/FTC Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (March 2006)
November 17	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) Supplemental Reading : J. Thomas Rosch, FTC Commissioner, “FTC Litigation at the Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface”, dated April 26, 2007 Leibowitz, “Excluson Payments to Settle Pharmaceutical Patent Cases”, dated April 24, 2006 In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 352 F.Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2005)
November 24	Student Presentations