Intellectual Property and Antitrust Seminar (Fall 2017)

Intellectual Property and Antitrust Seminar (Fall 2017) Darren S. Tucker 202-739-5740 / darrentucker20817@gmail.com Office Hours: By appointment (also available to answer questions via e-mail and phone) The seminar will focus on the U.S. approach to antitrust matters involving intellectual property rights. The course will include guest speakers, including from the U.S. antitrust agencies and leading practitioners. Reading: There is no required textbook for this class. I will provide links or citations below for all required reading assignments. I will also provide lists of additional resources; these are not required readings, but rather intended to serve as possible background material for papers. Grading: Grades will be based on your seminar paper, with the possibility of a half grade (A to A+ or A-) adjustment based on class participation. Papers should be 20-30 pages in length, double spaced. Paper deadlines: October 24 Paper topic November 7 Outline of paper November 21 and 28 In-class presentation of papers December 12 Final paper Schedule: August 22 Overview of U.S. Agencies Approach to Antitrust Matters Involving Intellectual Property Rights; the Economics of Innovation U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property 1-2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 (2017), https://www.justice.gov/atr/ipguidelines/download [hereinafter IP Guidelines] Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, on the U.S. Antitrust Agencies Proposed Update of the Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property Sections 1-2 (2016), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2841207 Richard A. Posner, Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, 19 J. ECON. PERPSECTIVES 57 (2005) Douglas H. Ginsburg & Joshua D. Wright, Dynamic Analysis and the Limits of Antitrust Institutions, 78 ANTITRUST L.J. 1 (2012) August 29 No class 1

September 5 Refusals to license and discriminatory licensing Guest lecturer: Jonathan Gleklen, Partner and Chair of Antitrust Practice Group, Arnold & Porter U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition, 15-32 (2007), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/antitrust-enforcement-and-intellectualproperty-rights-promoting-innovation-and-competition-report.s.department-justice-and-federaltrade-commission/p040101promotinginnovationandcompetitionrpt0704.pdf [hereinafter Promoting Innovation and Competition] In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation (CSU v. Xerox), 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994) September 12 Tying, Bundling, Grantbacks, and Cross-Licensing Guest lecturer: John Yun, Director of Economic Education, Global Antitrust Institute; former Acting Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics, FTC IP Guidelines 5.3, 5.5, 5.6 Promoting Innovation and Competition at 57-64, 91-93, 99-114 Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 31, 33-40, 43-46 (2006) Additional resources: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) September 19 Bad Faith Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Guest lecturer: Henry Su, Partner, Constantine Cannon; former advisor to FTC Chairwoman Ramirez and Commissioner Rosch IP Guidelines 6 Walker Process Equip, Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries (PRE), 508 U.S. 49 (1993) Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 601 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1979) September 26 Antitrust Issues Involving SEPs, Part 1 Guest lecturer: Alden Abbott, Deputy Director and Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage Foundation; former Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs, FTC Promoting Innovation and Competition at 33-56 2

Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Information Technologies, 68 FLA. L. REV. 419, 454-59 (2017), http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol68/iss2/9 Broadcom v. Qualcomm, 501 F.3d 297 (3rd Cir. 2007) Rambus v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Statement of the Commission, In the Matter of Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC (2008), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080122statement.pdf Dissenting Statement of Chairman Majoras, In the Matter of Negotiated Data Solutions LLC (2008), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080122majoras.pdf Dissenting Statement of Commissioner William E. Kovacic, In the Matter of Negotiated Data Solutions, LLC (2008), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2008/01/080122kovacic.pdf Additional resources Bruce H. Kobayashi & Joshua D. Wright, Federalism Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup, 5 J. COMPETITION L. ECON. 13, 486-513, http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/3/469.full.pdf+htm Koren W. Wong-Ervin & Joshua D. Wright, Intellectual Property and Standard Setting, 17 FEDERALIST SOCIETY REV. 52 (2016), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2878955 Anne Layne-Farrar & Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Standard-Essential Patents and Market Power, WORLD COMPETITION DAY (2016), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2872172 United States OECD Submission on Intellectual Property and Standard Setting (2014), http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=daf/comp/wd(2014 )116&doclanguage=en October 3 Antitrust Issues Involving SEPs, Part 2 Guest lecturer: Will Tom, Partner at Morgan Lewis; a principal drafter of 1995 IP Guidelines Statement of the Commission, In the Matter of Google Inc. (2013), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/01/130103googlemotorolastmtofco mm.pdf Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen, In the Matter of Motorola Mobility LLC and Google Inc. (2013), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/01/130103googlemotorolaohlhause nstmt.pdf Carl Shapiro and Mark Lemley, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties, 12 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 280 (2010), http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/2/280.full.pdf+html 3

Douglas H Ginsburg. et al, The Troubling Use of Antitrust to Regulate FRAND Licensing, 10 ANTITRUST CHRON. 1 (2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674759 Douglas H. Ginsburg et al., Excessive Royalty Prohibitions and the Dangers of Punishing Vigorous Competition and Harming Incentives to Innovate, 4 CPI ANTITRUST CHRON. 13 (2016), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748252 Joseph Kattan, PC, The Next FRAND Battle: Why the Royalty Base Matters, ANTITRUST CHRON., Mar. 2015, http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/documents/kattan-why-the- Royalty-Base-Matters-CPI-03.2015.pdf Case C-170/13, Huawei Technologies Co. v. ZTE Corp., 2015 E.C.R. I-1 (E.C.J. 2015), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=165911&pageindex=0&doclan g=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=603775 Jorge Padilla & Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Portfolio Licensing at the End-User Device Level: Analyzing Refusals to License FRAND-Assured Standard-Essential Patents at the Component Level, 62 ANTITRUST BULLETIN (forthcoming 2017), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2806688 Anne Layne-Farrar, Nondiscriminatory Pricing: Is Standard Setting Different?, 6 J. COMPETITION L. ECON. 811 (2010), http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/04/joclec.nhq009.full.pdf October 10 No class October 17 Patent Portfolio Acquisitions and Patent Pools Guest Speaker: Frances Marshall, Senior Counsel for Intellectual Property, Appellate Section, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (tentative) Promoting Innovation and Competition at 64-86 Statement of the Department of Justice s Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigations of Google Inc. s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (Feb. 13, 2012), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-department-justice-s-antitrust-division-itsdecision-close-its-investigations Case No. COMP/M.6381, Google/Motorola Mobility, Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/2004, 2012 O. J. (1068), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6381_20120213_20310_2277480_en. pdf Letter from Joel I. Klein, Acting Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq. (June 26, 1997), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/10/17/215742.pdf Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq. (Dec. 16, 1998), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/04/27/2121.pdf 4

Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep t of Justice, to Carey R. Ramos, Esq. (June 10, 1999), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/08/01/2485.pdf Letter from Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep t of Justice, to Ky P. Ewing, Esq. (Nov. 12, 2002), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/04/27/200455.pdf October 24 - Reverse-Payment Settlements and Incremental Innovations ( Product Hopping ) Guest Speakers: Markus Meier, Assistant Director for Health Care Division, FTC FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013) New York v. Actavis, PLC, 787 F.3d 638 (2nd Cir. 2015) Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., 2015 WL 1736957 at *14 (E.D. Pa. 2015) C. Scott Hemphill et al, Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem, 81 N.Y.U. LAW REV. 101 (2006), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925919 Douglas H. Ginsburg et al, Actavis and Multiple ANDA Entrants: Beyond the Temporary Duopoly, 29 ANTITRUST 89 (2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2508094 Douglas H. Ginsburg et al, Product Hopping and the Limits of Antitrust: The Danger of Micromanaging Innovation, CPI ANTITRUST CHRON., Dec. 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2703597 Brief for Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner-Chilcott PLC, No. 15-2236 (3rd Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/mylanpharmaceuticals-inc.v.warnerchilcott-plc-et-al./151001mylanamicusbrief.pdf October 31 Divergence Between U.S. and Non-U.S. Approach to Antitrust Enforcement of Intellectual Property Issues Guest lecturer: Hill Wellford, Partner at Morgan Lewis; Co-chair, ABA Dominance Divergence Task Force European Commission, Submission to the OECD Roundtable on Refusals to Deal (October 2007), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/multilateral/2007_oct_refusals_to_deal.pdf. (Pay particular attention to the discussion of the EC s decisions in IMS Health and Microsoft.) European Commission press release, Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android operating system and applications (April 2016), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_ip-16-1492_en.htm. European Commission press release, Antitrust: Commission fines Google 2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service (June 2017), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ip-17-1784_en.htm. 5

Japanese Fair Trade Commission press release, Cease and Desist Order against QUALCOMM Incorporated (September 2009), http://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly- 2009/sep/individual-000038.html. (Note: please print the JFTC s explanatory graphic/cartoon and bring it with you to class.) We will be comparing the approaches in the foregoing matters to the US approach, which is reflected in part by previous class discussion of Promoting Innovation and Competition (pp. 25-32) and the Broadcom, Rambus, Microsoft Corp. and Illinois Tool Works cases. Also, you may wish to review the basic holding in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009). November 7 Antitrust Issues Involving SEPs, Part 3: FRAND and the International Trade Commission Guest Speaker: Scott Kieff, George Washington University Law School; former Commissioner at the U.S. International Trade Commission Initial Determination on Remand, In re Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof ( InterDigital v. Nokia ), Inv. No. 337-TA-613, 35-67 (ITC Apr. 27, 2015), http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2015/05/2015.04.27-public- Version-of-ID-on-Remand.pdf Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond, In re Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof ( InterDigital v. Nokia ), Inv. No. 337-TA-868, 108-126 (ITC June 13, 2014), http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/64/2014/07/2014.06.26-initial- Determination-on-ViolationPUBLIC-337-TA-868smMRC.pdf Written Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, In re Certain 3G Mobile Handsets & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (Int l Trade Comm n, July 10, 2015), http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/64/2015/08/2015.07.13-ftc- Rameriz-Submission.pdf Written Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commissioners Maureen K. Ohlhausen & Joshua D. Wright, In re Certain 3G Mobile Handsets & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (Int l Trade Comm n, July 20, 2015), http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/64/2015/08/2015.07.20-ftcs-reply.pdf November 14 Patent assertion entities Guest lecturer: Mark Popofsky, Partner and Chair of Antitrust Practice Group, Ropes & Gray Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study (Oct. 2016) Executive Summary, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftcstudy/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study_0.pdf Mark Popofsky & Michael Laufert, Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers, ANTITRUST SOURCE, April 2013, https://www.ropesgray.com/~/media/files/articles/2013/04/antitrust-attacks-on-patent- Assertion-Entities.pdf 6

Additional resources: Mark A. Lemley & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls, SSRN, May 28, 2015, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269087 Erica S. Mintzer & Suzanne Munck, The Joint U.S. Department Of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Patent Assertion Entity Activities Follow the Money, 79 ANTITRUST L.J. 423 (2014) Joshua D. Wright & Douglas H. Ginsburg, Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: A Competition Cure for a Litigation Disease?, 79 ANTITRUST L.J. 501 (2014), https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1511.pdf Mark Popofsky & Michael Laufert, Antitrust Attacks on Patent Assertion Entities, 79 ANTITRUST L.J. 445 (2014), https://www.ropesgray.com/~/media/files/articles/2014/june/popofsky-laufert%20- ALJ.pdf November 21 - Presentation of Papers Part I November 28 Presentation of Papers Part II Special thanks to Koren W. Wong-Ervin for developing much of this syllabus. 7