The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (the Agencies) announced the withdrawal of a 2019...more
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the Agencies) published guidelines that delineated how and when the Agencies would evaluate intellectual property licensing...more
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit last week in federal court against Qualcomm, Inc., following its investigation launched in September 2014. The FTC alleges that the semiconductor manufacturer illegally maintained a...more
1/25/2017
/ Antitrust Violations ,
Apple ,
Cell Phones ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Declaratory Relief ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
FRAND ,
FTC Act ,
Licensing Rights ,
Mobile Devices ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Qualcomm ,
Retail Market ,
Royalties ,
Section 5 ,
Smartphones ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Technology ,
Technology Sector ,
Unfair Competition ,
Wireless Devices ,
Wireless Technology
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more
7/5/2016
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
AbbVie ,
Actavis Inc. ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
FTC v Actavis ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Patents ,
Pay-For-Delay ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements ,
SCOTUS ,
SmithKline Beecham ,
Warner Chilcott
Qualcomm sells chipsets and licenses its related standard-essential patents for use in 3G- and 4G-enabled smartphones and tablets. In late 2013, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began investigating...more
United States antitrust law seeks to encourage free and open competition by preventing exclusionary conduct that threatens the competitive process. Intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, by contrast, are designed to...more
United States antitrust laws seek to encourage free and open competition by preventing exclusionary conduct that threatens the competitive process. Intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, by contrast, are designed to...more
In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that...more
With two deft strokes, Vermont simultaneously increased the tools in its enforcement toolbox and dealt a significant blow to a well-known patent assertion entity (PAE)....more
On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a rare negative business review letter declining to approve a plan by Intellectual Property Exchange International Inc. (IPXI) to offer a financial exchange for...more
On November 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp., No. 2012-1183, 2012 WL 5862779 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012). They affirmed that direct...more