276.2 – Antitrust & Intellectual Property (F09)

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)

Supplemental Reading:

• 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

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)

Supplemental Reading:

• 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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Supplemental Reading:

• 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)

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

Supplemental Reading:

• 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

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)

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

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)

Supplementary Reading:

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

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)

Supplementary Reading:

• 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