Non-challenge clauses in the TTBER and beyond: implications for litigation and settlements. Sophie Lawrance, Senior Associate Bristows LLP 8 May 2015
|
|
- Elvin Woods
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Non-challenge clauses in the TTBER and beyond: implications for litigation and settlements Sophie Lawrance, Senior Associate Bristows LLP 8 May 2015
2 Agenda Brief review of the evolution of the law The current position under the new Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation ( TTBER ) and accompanying Guidelines (2014) Justifications explicit and implied for the new approach Practical considerations for licensing and settlements
3 The law a brief history Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines 2004 version Licensing: Direct or indirect non-challenge provisions were excluded restrictions But terminate-on-challenge provisions were accepted (within the block exemption) Settlement: Guidelines, 209: In the context of a settlement and non-assertion agreement, non-challenge clauses are generally considered to fall outside Article [101](1).
4 What is the position now? TTBER and Guidelines 2014 version Licensing: Non-challenge provisions remain excluded restrictions - now includes terminate-on-challenge provisions, except for: Those included in exclusive licences within market share thresholds (licensor is in position of dependency : 139) Those concerning only know-how ( 140) or challenges to ownership ( 135) Settlement: : Still generally considered to fall outside Art 101(1) (But NB Lundbeck: TT Guidelines apply only if a licence is granted) But may be anti-competitive under specific circumstances e.g., if there is inducement
5 Explanation of the new approach Main cited justifications Licensing TT Guidelines, 134 & 136: licensees normally in the best position to determine whether or not a licensed patent is invalid invalid patents stifle, rather than promote innovation termination right can have same effect as non-challenge in particular if it could cause loss to the licensee exclusive licensing: licensor in situation of (financial) dependency Settlements TT Guidelines, : inherent that parties agree not to challenge IPRs which were the centre of the dispute very purpose is to settle /avoid future disputes But restriction of right to challenge is not part of specific subject matter of IPR and may restrict competition
6 How did we get here? Under the draft TTBER (2013 consultation version) all non-challenge provisions, including termination-on-challenge, were to be treated as excluded restrictions Case law cited in new TT Guidelines: 138: Windsurfing International (1986!): public interest to eliminate obstacles to economic activity - i.e., potentially invalid patents 134: Bayer v. Süllhofer (1988!): No restriction of competition if process is technically outdated (but cf. Commission s arguments in Windsurfing: the removal of a monopoly perhaps wrongly granted to the licensor must prevail over any other consideration ) => Elimination of invalid patents is not an absolute goal cf. Bayer, above, and treatment of exclusive licences Important for both licensing and settlements
7 Other influences? US law: Lear v. Adkins (1969): non-challenge provisions muzzle licensees, who may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patent s validity ; the public should not be required continually to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification Rates Technology v. Speakeasy (2012): Followed Lear concerned a settlement entered into pre-litigation FTC v. Actavis (2013): Cited Lear in context of patent settlement review Commission case load at time when 2014 TTBER/Guidelines were under preparation: Pay-for-delay settlement cases (citalopram, perindopril) Motorola seeking/enforcing of injunctive relief on SEPs
8 Motorola (with a glance at Huawei v. ZTE) Identified two anti-competitive effects of the terminate-on-challenge clause : It may lead other potential licensees of the patents (in this case SEPs) covered by the SA to pay for invalid IP (i.e., the Windsurfing principle) Limit on licensee s ability to influence the level of royalties it will have pay to the licensor for the use of the patents covered by the agreement The SEP context is relevant to both aspects (inability to design around) Settlement agreement, but principles applied more like a licence Cf. position in the Technology Transfer Guidelines on non-challenge in SEP context ( 136) Cf. Huawei v. ZTE (AG Wathelet): Licensee of SEPs must be entitled to challenge licensed patents after grant (but is this appropriate for settlements?)
9 Pay-for-delay cases General policy points: No immunity from competition law for settlements, including nonchallenge provisions (Bayer v. Süllhofer, cited in Lundbeck, 81/600) Legal assumption of validity of granted patents does not prevent court actions to challenge validity expression of potential competition Irrelevant whether any patent challenge would have been made / what the outcome would have been Key legal findings for non-challenge provisions: Non-challenge provision = restriction (even if within scope of patent) If there is any inducement, agreement likely to be viewed as anticompetitive (even if other challengers remain) Restrictions on generic obtaining declarations of non-infringement approach as for validity challenges (even though underlying policy is different)
10 Practical considerations settlement (non-challenge) Scope of the non-challenge patents central to the dispute? Treatment of patent family members? Non-central patents treat in the same way as for licences Ambit of the provision does it limit the licensee s ability to raise arguments in relation to damages / royalty assessment / future royalties? Consider providing for advance notice of challenge rather than absolute non-challenge Caution with limitations on seeking future declarations of non-infringement Risks much greater if any inducement (includes grant of certain licences ) in the pharma sector - and perhaps beyond?
11 Practical considerations licensing (termination right) Licensor s market share? Exclusive licence? Is licensor otherwise dependent on licensee? Nature of the technology how easy to design around? Portfolio licensing: Is a partial termination on challenge ever justifiable? Should licence fees be reduced if a patent is knocked out? Relevance of licensee breach Is it safe to use other forms of more indirect incentive? e.g.: Wide termination rights which could be triggered if a challenge is brought Obligation to pay licensor s costs of defending challenge, if unsuccessful?
12 Further reading Lawrance: The competition law treatment of no-challenge clauses in licence agreements: an unfortunate revolution?, Journal of IP Law and Practice 2014, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp Brenner: Slowing the Rates of innovation: How the Second Circuit s ban on no-challenge clauses in pre-litigation settlement agreements hinders business growth, 54 British Columbia Law Review (E.Supp) 57 (2013) Zafar & Lawrance: The revised technology transfer regime Is there more to patents than their validity? post of 8 May 2014, available on
13 Thank you Bristows LLP 100 Victoria Embankment London EC4Y 0DH T +44(0) F +44(0) sophie.lawrance@bristows.com
Clarifying Competition Law: Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and EU/U.S. Competition/Antitrust Law. Robert S. K.
Clarifying Competition Law: Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and EU/U.S. Competition/Antitrust Law Robert S. K. Bell Arindam Kar Speakers Robert S. K. Bell Partner Bryan Cave London T: +44
More informationRisks of Grant-back Provisions in Licensing Agreements: A Warning to Patent-heavy Companies
Risks of Grant-back Provisions in Licensing Agreements: A Warning to Patent-heavy Companies By Susan Ning, Ting Gong & Yuanshan Li 1 I. SUMMARY In recent years, the interplay between intellectual property
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property
and Intellectual Property July 22, 2016 Rob Kidwell, Member Antitrust Prohibitions vs IP Protections The Challenge Harmonizing U.S. antitrust laws that sanction the illegal use of monopoly/market power
More informationEU Advocate General Opines That Seeking Injunctions On FRAND-Encumbered SEPs May Constitute an Abuse of Dominance
NOVEMBER 17-22, 2014 WRITTEN BY KENNETH H. MERBER EDITED BY KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN The views expressed in this e-bulletin are the views of the author alone. In this Issue: EU Advocate General Opines That
More informationAugust 6, AIPLA Comments on Partial Amendment of Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft)
Person in Charge of the Partial Amendment of the IP Guidelines (Draft) Consultation and Guidance Office, Trade Practices Division Economic Affairs Bureau, Secretariat, Japan Fair Trade Commission Section
More informationAIPLA Comments on Questionnaire on IP Misuse Antitrust Guidelines
October 14, 2015 2015 10 14 Mr. Liu Jian Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau National Development and Reform Commission People s Republic of China Re: AIPLA Comments on Questionnaire on IP Misuse
More informationThe German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)
The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Position Paper The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.
More informationFRAND or Foe: Litigating Standard Essential Patents
FRAND or Foe: Litigating Standard Essential Patents Munich Seminar May 2013 Munich, Germany Christopher Dillon (Dillon@fr.com) Jan Malte Schley (Schley@fr.com) Brian Wells (wells@fr.com) Presentation Overview
More informationHuawei v ZTE No More Need To Look At The Orange Book In SEP Disputes
1 Huawei v ZTE No More Need To Look At The Orange Book In SEP Disputes By James Killick & Stratigoula Sakellariou 1 (White & Case) September 2015 Industry standards are crucial for economic development
More informationSurvey on Trends for Commercializing IP. Australia
Survey on Trends for Commercializing IP Australia Clayton Utz www.claytonutz.com Levels 19-35 No. 1 O'Connell St. Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Australia Tel: 61.2.9353.4000 / Fax: 61.2.8220.6700 PROTECTION
More informationAntitrust IP Competition Perspectives
Antitrust IP Competition Perspectives Dr. Dina Kallay Counsel for IP and Int l Antitrust Federal Trade Commission The 6 th Annual Session of the UNECE Team of I.P. Specialists June 21, 2012 The views expressed
More informationFTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF INTEREST FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Interesting and difficult questions lie at the intersection of intellectual property rights and
More informationPrathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group)
Prathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group) Section 108 relates to relief in a suit for infringement Section 108(1) provides for Damages or Account of Profits At the option of the Plaintiff Section
More informationA Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v.
Order Code RL34156 A Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v. Genentech August 30, 2007 Brian T. Yeh Legislative
More informationFebruary I. General Comments
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chamber of Commerce in China Joint Comments to the State Administration of Industry and Commerce on the Guideline on Intellectual Property Abuse (Draft for
More informationA Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play a Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements
A Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play a Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements Michael A. Carrier* The Supreme Court s decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. 1 has justly received
More informationLaw in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND Commitments and Obligations for Standards-Essential Patents
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND Commitments and Obligations for Standards-Essential Patents Hosted by: Methodological Overview of FRAND Rate Determination
More informationThe ECJ s Huawei v. ZTE Decision and its Implementation in Practice
The ECJ s Huawei v. ZTE Decision and its Implementation in Practice Prof. Dr. Christian Donle, Attorney at Law Dr. Axel Oldekop, Attorney at Law December 2015 Overview I. Introduction II. III. The ECJ
More informationAPLI Antitrust & Licensing Issues Panel: SEP Injunctions
APLI Antitrust & Licensing Issues Panel: SEP Injunctions Robert D. Fram Covington & Burling LLP Advanced Patent Law Institute Palo Alto, California December 11, 2015 1 Disclaimer The views set forth on
More informationAIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington DC 23 October Licenses in European Patent Litigation
AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington DC 23 October 2014 Licenses in European Patent Litigation Dr Jochen Bühling, Attorney-at-law/Partner, Krieger Mes & Graf v. Groeben Olivier Nicolle, French and European
More informationLaw in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision Hosted by: Overview Why the decision is important What does the Huawei vs ZTE decision say?
More informationSpeaker and Panelists 7/17/2013. The Honorable James L. Robart. Featured Speaker: Panelists: Moderator:
Updates in Determining RAND for Standards Essential Patents: Featuring The Honorable James L. Robart July 12, 2013 Washington State Patent Law Association IP Committee of the Federal Bar Association for
More informationGood-Faith licensing negotiation. March 2018 Masabumi Suzuki RIETI Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University
Good-Faith licensing negotiation March 2018 Masabumi Suzuki RIETI Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University Outline FRAND and good-faith negotiation Legal contexts Different Approaches to Restriction of
More informationLitigating standard essential patents: any news from CJEU in Huawei v. ZTE? Young EPLAW. Brussels, April 27th, Dr. Tobias J. Hessel.
Litigating standard essential patents: any news from CJEU in Huawei v. ZTE? Young EPLAW Brussels, April 27th, 2015 Dr. Tobias J. Hessel Overview I. Potential new requirements for FRAND defense 1) Market
More informationSession 3 - Focus Arbitration WIPO Case Example: Multi-Party Pharma Patent License Arbitration
WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences Bonn, 10 November 2016 Session 3 - Focus Arbitration WIPO Case Example: Multi-Party Pharma Patent License Arbitration Philipp Groz Overview > Case
More informationC RITERION E CONOMICS
1717 K Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: +1 (202) 518-5121 J. Gregory Sidak Chairman Direct Dial: +1 (202) 518-5121 jgsidak@criterioneconomics.com National Development and Reform Commission
More informationA Rational Thinking on the Refusal to License Intellectual Property under China s Antitrust Legal Framework. Dr. Zhan Hao & Ms.
A Rational Thinking on the Refusal to License Intellectual Property under China s Antitrust Legal Framework Dr. Zhan Hao & Ms. Song Ying 1. Introduction This article will address the perplexing issue of
More informationAGREEMENT GUIDELINES TRANSFER OF USE [NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCE]
AGREEMENT GUIDELINES TRANSFER OF USE [NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCE] AGREEMENT AG AG AG AG AG AG AG AG AGR GR GR GR GR GR GR GRE RE RE RE RE RE RE REE EE EE EE EE EE EE EEM EM EM EM EM EM EM EM EME ME ME ME ME
More informationPAYING FOR DELAY AND THE RULE OF REASON FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V ACTAVIS INC ET AL 1
COMPETITION LAW PAYING FOR DELAY AND THE RULE OF REASON FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V ACTAVIS INC ET AL 1 LIGIA OSEPCIU 2 JUNE 2013 On 17 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle March 2015 (1)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle March 2015 (1) Carte Blanche for SSOs? The Antitrust Division s Business Review Letter on the IEEE s Patent Policy Update Stuart M. Chemtob Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
More informationStandard-Setting, Competition Law and the Ex Ante Debate
Standard-Setting, Competition Law and the Ex Ante Debate Presentation to ETSI SOS Interoperability III Meeting Sofia Antipolis, France 21 February 2006 Gil Ohana Cisco Systems Legal Department 1 What We
More informationPublished by. Yearbook. Building IP value in the 21st century. Standard-essential patent monetisation and enforcement. Vringo, Inc David L Cohen
Published by Yearbook 2016 Building IP value in the 21st century Standard-essential patent monetisation and enforcement Vringo, Inc David L Cohen Vringo, Inc Monetisation and strategy X X Standard-essential
More informationGUIDELINE ON THE EXEMPTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT
GUIDELINE ON THE EXEMPTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENT Chapter I. BACKGROUND... 1 Chapter II. GOAL OF GUIDELINE ARRANGEMENT.. Chapter III. PROVISION OF ARTICLE 50 POINT B
More informationFederal Circuit Provides Guidance on Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Royalty Rates, Vacating the Jury Award in Ericsson v.
In this Issue: WRITTEN BY COURTNEY J. ARMOUR AND KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN EDITED BY KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN The views expressed in this e-bulletin are the views of the authors alone. DECEMBER 1-6, 2014 Federal
More informationCONSTRAINTS TO FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN PATENT LICENSING AGREEMENTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND UKRAINIAN SOLUTIONS. by Nataliia Ievchuk
CONSTRAINTS TO FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN PATENT LICENSING AGREEMENTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND UKRAINIAN SOLUTIONS by Nataliia Ievchuk LL.M. SHORT THESIS COURSE: International and Comparative
More informationJOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW VOLUME 5 SPRING 2016 NUMBER 2 ANTITRUST TREATMENT OF THE NO CHALLENGE CLAUSE THOMAS K. CHENG * This Article examines a patent
More informationPharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse
AUGUST 2009, RELEASE ONE Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse Kristina Nordlander & Patrick Harrison Sidley Austin LLP Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse Kristina
More informationBusiness Development & Licensing Journal
Issue 18 September 2012 www.plg-uk.com Business Development & Licensing Journal For the Pharmaceutical Licensing Groups Early termination of license agreements As is often the case with marriage, the possibility
More informationOverview of Developments in Telecoms Patent Litigation
Fordham IP Conference April 2012 Overview of Developments in Telecoms Patent Litigation Ari Laakkonen Powell Gilbert LLP Health Warning: My comments reflect my personal opinions. 1992 Analogue phones were
More informationEnforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies
Enforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies MIP Asia-Pacific Forum 2011 Kherk Ying Chew, Kuala Lumpur Celeste Ang, Singapore Adolf Panggabean, Jakarta 29 September 2011 / Hong Kong Baker
More informationINTERNATIONAL IP LICENSING: EUROPE March 7, Jeremy Schrire
INTERNATIONAL IP LICENSING: EUROPE March 7, 2017 Jeremy Schrire INTRODUCTION 1. Overview 2. If you choose US law, can you ignore European laws? 3. If your governing law is a European law can you choose
More informationDOJ Issues Favorable BRL on Proposed Revisions to IEEE s Patent Policy
In this Issue: WRITTEN BY BRENDAN J. COFFMAN AND KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN DOJ Issues Favorable BRL on Proposed Revisions to IEEE s Patent Policy FEBRUARY 2-7, 2015 EC to Closely Watch Proposed Revisions to
More informationPromoters Agreement Update to Definitions. This update relates to clause 1.5 of the Promoters Agreement shown below:
Promoters Agreement Update to Definitions This update relates to clause 1.5 of the Promoters Agreement shown below: 1.5 Specification means the document entitled ICC Profile Format Specification authored
More informationJanuary 3, General Comments
COMMENT OF THE GLOBAL ANTITRUST INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, ON THE KOREA FAIR TRADE COMMISSION S AMENDMENT TO ITS REVIEW GUIDELINES ON UNFAIR EXERCISE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
More informationProtection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law
Question Q215 National Group: Korea Title: Contributors: Representative within Working Committee: Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law Sun R. Kim Sun R. Kim Date: April 10,
More informationTHE TROUBLING USE OF ANTITRUST TO REGULATE FRAND LICENSING
THE TROUBLING USE OF ANTITRUST TO REGULATE FRAND LICENSING Douglas H. Ginsburg George Mason University School of Law Koren W. Wong-Ervin George Mason University School of Law Joshua D. Wright George Mason
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle October 2015 (2)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle October 2015 (2) HUAWEÏ v ZTE: Judicial Conservatism at the Patent-Antitrust Intersection Nicolas Petit University of Liège www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition Policy
More informationFreedom to Operate and Selected Issues
Freedom to Operate and Selected Issues March 9, 2010 Presented by: Cary A. Levitt My principal business consists of giving commercial value to the brilliant, but misdirected, ideas of others... Accordingly,
More informationUNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. In the Matter of CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (REMAND) REPLY OF J. GREGORY SIDAK, CHAIRMAN, CRITERION
More informationIEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Patent Policy
IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Patent Policy Patent Policy Review at IEEE-SA David Law IEEE-SA PatCom Chair 14 th July 2014 Outline 1. Impetus for the current review 2. Highlights of proposed modifications
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More informationCOMMENT OF THE GLOBAL ANTITRUST INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, ON THE STATE ADMINISTRATION FOR INDUSTRY
COMMENT OF THE GLOBAL ANTITRUST INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, ON THE STATE ADMINISTRATION FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE ANTI-MONOPOLY GUIDELINES ON THE ABUSE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
More informationBetter than yesterday but worse than tomorrow
Centre for Information and Innovation Law 17 th EIPIN Congress January 29 th 2016 Better than yesterday but worse than tomorrow - the Unified Patent Court: Pros and cons of specialisation - Professor,
More informationAdam BOGER, Marc RICHARDS, Elise SELINGER, Jay WESTERMEIER
Question Q241 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: United States of America IP licensing and insolvency Adam BOGER, Marc RICHARDS, Elise SELINGER, Jay WESTERMEIER Marc
More informationMore documents related to this discussion can be found at
Unclassified DAF/COMP/WD(2014)75 DAF/COMP/WD(2014)75 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 17-Jun-2014 English
More informationNTT DOCOMO Technical Journal. Akimichi Tanabe Takuya Asaoka Katsunori Tsunoda Makoto Kijima. 1. Introduction
Essential Patent Rights Exercise Restriction NPE 1. Introduction Recent growth in patent transactions has been accompanied by increasing numbers of patent disputes, especially in the field of information
More informationAntitrust Regulation of IPRs China s First Proposal
Competition Policy International Antitrust Regulation of IPRs China s First Proposal Adrian Emch (Hogan Lovells) & Liyang Hou (KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) 1 1 Introduction On June
More informationPatents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction
Patents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction Mark H. Webbink Senior Lecturing Fellow Duke University School of Law Nature of standards, standards setting organizations, and their intellectual property
More informationDOJ and USPTO Issue Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND-Encumbered SEPs
JANUARY 7-11, 2013 THIS WEEK S CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR IS DINA KALLAY EDITED BY KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN PATENTS DOJ and USPTO Issue Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND-Encumbered SEPs On January 8, the DOJ
More informationTechnology and IP Forum: Current global issues in SEP licensing, enforcement, and disputes December 4, 2018
Technology and IP Forum: Current global issues in SEP licensing, enforcement, and disputes December 4, 2018 Agenda Introduction to Standards, SEPs, and FRAND licensing Regional consideration and opportunities
More informationLeveraging the Patent Reexamination
Leveraging the Patent Reexamination By James De Vellis 2010 Introduction With reexamination of issued patents firmly planted in the IP mainstream, it is increasingly important to convey to the business
More informationSDL Web Click Wrap DEVELOPER SOFTWARE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT RESTRICTED TO USE BY DEVELOPERS. Terms and Conditions
SDL Web Click Wrap DEVELOPER SOFTWARE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT RESTRICTED TO USE BY DEVELOPERS Terms and Conditions 1. Your Relationship with SDL 1.1 Your use of any SDL Web software, including any web
More informationIP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN
IP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN This paper was created by the Intellectual Property Owners Association IP Licensing Committee to provide background to IPO members. It should not
More informationTHE FUTURE OF STANDARD SETTING
THE FUTURE OF STANDARD SETTING CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY S SIXTH ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE OCTOBER 11-12, 2018 Richard S. Taffet 2017 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Diverse Approaches
More informationThe Antitrust Review of the Americas 2017
The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2017 Published by Global Competition Review in association with Analysis Group Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Baker & Hostetler LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Bennett Jones
More informationANSI Legal Issues Forum Washington, D.C. October 12, 2006 Antitrust Update
ANSI Legal Issues Forum Washington, D.C. October 12, 2006 Antitrust Update Richard S. Taffet Bingham McCutchen LLP (212) 705-7729 richard.taffet@bingham.com Gil Ohana Cisco Systems, Inc. (408) 525-2853
More informationInjunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents
Litigation Webinar Series: INSIGHTS Our take on litigation and trial developments across the U.S. Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents David Healey Sr. Principal, Fish & Richardson Houston,
More informationafter hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 November 2014, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ru
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 16 July 2015 (*) (Competition Article 102 TFEU Undertaking holding a patent essential to a standard which has given a commitment, to the standardisation body, to grant
More informationPatent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials
Patent litigation. Block 3; Module UPC Law Patent litigation. Block 3. Module UPC Law Essentials Article 32(f) of the UPC Agreement ( UPCA ) states that subject to the transitional regime of Article 83
More informationInternational Arbitration of Patent Disputes. M. Scott Donahey Arbitrator and Mediator Palo Alto
International Arbitration of Patent Disputes M. Scott Donahey Arbitrator and Mediator Palo Alto adr@scottdonahey.com; www.scottdonahey.com Reasons to Arbitrate Patent Disputes Cost of Litigation Litigation
More informationFinland Finlande Finnland. Report Q205
Finland Finlande Finnland Report Q205 in the name of the Finnish Group by Esa KORKEAMÄKI, Lasse RISKI, Maria TOIVAKKA, Oskari ROVAMO and Matti Pekka KUUTTINEN Exhaustion of IPRs in cases of recycling and
More informationSITUATION UNDER CONTROL" by Veikko Myller. AIPPI Forum Helsinki 2013 IP Licensing & Insolvency Bernt Juthström
SITUATION UNDER CONTROL" by Veikko Myller AIPPI Forum Helsinki 2013 IP Licensing & Insolvency - Why a (patent) license? Manufacture of a product in accordance with a certain standard may require a license
More informationAmerican Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic. Position Paper. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe. Answering.
First Vice Second Vice Czech American Chamber of Commerce in the Czech Republic Position Paper Answering Questionnaire On the patent system in Europe Section 5 General 5.5 Are there other issues than those
More informationPatent Misuse. William Fisher November 2017
Patent Misuse William Fisher November 2017 Patent Misuse History: Origins in equitable doctrine of unclean hands Gradually becomes increasingly associated with antitrust analysis Corresponding incomplete
More informationBIO Advanced Business Development Course. Intellectual Property
BIO Advanced Business Development Course Intellectual Property Philadelphia, June 2015 Patrick Duxbury, Partner, Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP, London What are we going to cover? Intellectual Property
More informationCircuit Court, N. D. Illinois. March 8, 1886.
702 OHIO STEEL BARB FENCE CO. V. WASHBURN & MOEN MANUF'G CO. AND ANOTHER. 1 Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. March 8, 1886. 1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. A court of equity will not specifically enforce a contract
More informationSide Effects The Evolving Law of Reverse Payments and Its Impact on Drug Litigation
Side Effects The Evolving Law of Reverse Payments and Its Impact on Drug Litigation Side Effects The Evolving Law of Reverse Payments and Its Impact on Drug Litigation Few areas of health law have seen
More informationUnderstanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development Patented Technology in IEEE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationInternational Competition Network Unilateral Conduct Working Group Questionnaire
International Competition Network Unilateral Conduct Working Group Questionnaire Agency Name: Fiscalía Nacional Económica FNE (National Economic Prosecutor s Office) Date: vember 30 th, 2009 Refusal to
More informationA Review of Korean Competition Law and Guidelines for Exercise of Standardrelated
Journal of Korean Law Vol. 15, 117-155, December 2015 A Review of Korean Competition Law and Guidelines for Exercise of Standardrelated Patents* Dae-Sik Hong** Abstract The purpose and main scope of this
More informationFordham Intellectual Property Law Institute. Wolfgang von Meibom
Fordham Intellectual Property Law Institute Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law and Policy on March 27-28, 2008 Wolfgang von Meibom European Case Law on FRAND Defence in Patent Infringement
More informationInjunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
Injunctions for patent infringement after the ebay decision Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement From Innovation to Commercialisation 2007 February
More informationInjunctions and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs): The Problems of Arguing from the Particular to the General
Injunctions and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs): The Problems of Arguing from the Particular to the General Robert O Donoghue* Brick Court Chambers * robert.odonoghue@brickcourt.co.uk. The views expressed
More informationAIPLA Comments on the JPO Guide on Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents of March 9, 2018.
VIA EMAIL: PA0A00@jpo.go.jp Legislative Affairs Office General Coordination Division Policy Planning and Coordination Department Japan Patent Office 3-4-3 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8915, Japan
More informationCourt Approves 24.3 Million in Attorneys' Fees in Pay-For- Delay Litigation
WRITTEN BY SHYLAH R. ALFONSO AND LOGAN BREED JUNE 30 -JULY 6, 2014 PATENTS Court Approves 24.3 Million in Attorneys' Fees in Pay-For- Delay Litigation On June 30, a federal judge in Tennessee issued an
More informationthe Patent Battleground:
The Antitrust Enforcers Charge Onto the Patent Battleground: What Technology Companies Need to Know About Standard-Related Patents, RAND Commitments, and Competition Law Presenters: Willard K. Tom John
More informationIntellectual Property Rights and Antitrust Liability in the U.S.: The 2016 Landscape. Jonathan Gleklen Yasmine Harik Arnold & Porter LLP
Intellectual Property Rights and Antitrust Liability in the U.S.: The 2016 Landscape Jonathan Gleklen Yasmine Harik Arnold & Porter LLP June 2016 Perhaps the most fundamental question that arises at the
More informationPatents and Standards The American Picture. Judge Randall R. Rader U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Patents and Standards The American Picture Judge Randall R. Rader U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Roadmap Introduction Cases Conclusions Questions An Economist s View Terminologies: patent
More informationStanding Committee on
Standing Committee on Standards and Patents 2015 International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property AIPPI General Secretariat Toedistrasse 16 P. O. Box CH-8027 Zurich Tel. +41 44 280
More informationFTC Orders Compulsory IP Licensing to Remedy Competitive Concerns in Honeywell/Intermec Transaction
SEPTEMBER 8-15, 2013 WRITTEN BY MAC CONFORTI AND LOGAN BREED MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS FTC Orders Compulsory IP Licensing to Remedy Competitive Concerns in Honeywell/Intermec Transaction The FTC required
More informationSEPs & FRAND after Huawei/ZTE Report from the Venice Judges Forum:
SEPs & FRAND after Huawei/ZTE Report from the Venice Judges Forum: Mark van Gardingen Brussels (EPLAW), 24 November 2017 SEP s & FRAND panel in Venice Moderator: - Rian Kalden, Court of Appeal Judge (NL)
More informationInternational Competition Network Unilateral Conduct Working Group Questionnaire
International Competition Network Unilateral Conduct Working Group Questionnaire Agency Name: Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition Date: October 2009 Refusal to Deal This questionnaire
More informationInter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court
Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court Barbara A. Fiacco Duke Law Patent Institute May 14, 2013 Inter Partes Review 1 Overview Background: IPR by the numbers Standing/Privity
More informationAntitrust/Intellectual Property Interface Under U.S. Law
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface Under U.S.
More informationCOMMENT ON THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM COMMISSION S QUESTIONNAIRE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MISUSE ANTITRUST GUIDELINES
COMMENT ON THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM COMMISSION S QUESTIONNAIRE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MISUSE ANTITRUST GUIDELINES Douglas H. Ginsburg George Mason University School of Law Bruce H. Kobayashi
More informationKTI Knowledge Transfer Ireland. KTI Practical Guide Software Licence Agreements
KTI Practical Guide Software Licence Agreements 1 Foreword The KTI Practical Guides have been produced as a resource for those approaching transactions between Irish research performing organisations (RPOs)
More informationQuestionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project
Questionnaire 2 HCCH Judgments Project National/Regional Group: ISRAEL Contributors name(s): Tal Band, Yair Ziv E-Mail contact: yairz@s-horowitz.com Questions (1) With respect to Question no. 1 (Relating
More informationMultimedia over Coax Alliance Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy
Multimedia over Coax Alliance Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy 1. BACKGROUND The Alliance has been formed as a non-profit mutual benefit corporation for the purpose of developing and promoting
More information