276.2 - Antitrust & IP (Sp07)

Meeting Time:
F 8:00-9:50

Meeting Location:
Boalt 121

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 12	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
January 19	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.)
January 26	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 2	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) 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	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) 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	The “Essential Facilities” Doctrine and Refuses 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) 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	Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property Standards
Session 7	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	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, Asst, Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, June 3, 2005
March 9	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) Allen-Myland, Inc. v. IBM, 33 F 3d 194 (3rd Cir. 1994)
March 16	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 23	Merger Enforcement in Technology Markets
Session 11	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	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) 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	Student Presentations