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 :
|
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 :
|
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 :
|
March 26-30 |
No Class – SPRING BREAK |
March 31 |
Merger enforcement in technology markets |
Session 11 |
Reading :
|
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 |