Browsing by Subject "intellectual property law"

Now showing 1 - 18 of 18

Accuracy or Efficiency: Has Grain Processing Made a Difference?
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Kidd, George David
Since the Federal Circuit’s adoption of Panduit’s causation standard for establishing entitlement to lost profits damages in patent litigation, application of its noninfringing alternatives prong has lacked consistency. The court’s decision in Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., however, created an additional contribution to the Panduit standard, thereby raising the evidentiary bar while significantly altering the noninfringing-alternative inquiry. Grain Processing has given the infringer a potentially powerful defensive mechanism in an area in which patentees are generally favored, even when some infringement may be socially desirable. Grain Processing allows for the potential avoidance of lost profit damages, so long as the alleged infringer shows that it had the necessary equipment, know-how, and experience to produce an acceptable, noninfringing substitute during the alleged infringement period. The Grain Processing decision, however, raises some debate. As a judicially interjected gloss on damages, the added ability to limit damage awards to a reasonable royalty could have been too drastic. A closer look demonstrates a precarious policy balance. On the one hand, increases in patent litigation might justify implementing an additional hurdle to potential damage awards in order to further incentivize innovation. Added rigor provided by Grain Processing may deter frivolous and expensive litigation that might be asserted by patentees to keep new innovators out of the market. But on the other hand, if a market participant does unlawfully infringe, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the infringer should pay appropriate damages for the encroachment on another’s intellectual property. Grain Processing’s lost-profit-limiting defense against a patentee’s claim of entitlement to lost profits damages may serve to deter potentially useful innovation by increasing costs shouldered by patentees in defending their patent rights. This Note analyzes six Federal Circuit cases appealing lost profits determinations, decided both before and after Grain Processing, and attempts to discern the impacts that Grain Processing has had on patentees’ entitlements to lost profits. This Note is organized in four parts. Part I provides the historical and substantive context necessary to understand the Grain Processing decision and examines important statutory changes, especially their subsequent interpretation, both before and after Grain Processing. Part II summarizes three pre-, as well as three post-Grain Processing cases. Parts III and IV dissect and analyze the holdings in these cases and evaluate Grain Processing’s impact on patent damages.
Actavis, the Reverse Payment Fallacy, and the Continuing Need for Regulatory Solutions
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Crane, Daniel A.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Activating Actavis: Economic Issues in Applying the Rule of Reason to Reverse Payment Settlements
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Addanki, Sumanth; Butler, Henry N.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Anticompetitive Patent Settlements and the Supreme Court’s Actavis Decision
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Hovenkamp, Herbert
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Applying the Fragmented Literal Similarity Test to Musical-Work and Sound-Recording Infringement: Correcting the Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films Legacy
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Carter, Mark
Copyright law simultaneously protects recorded music in two distinct ways: as a musical work (i.e. composition) and as a sound recording. Copyright law protects all copyrightable works against unapproved reproduction (i.e., copying). Normally, the substantial similarity standard tests reproduction infringement. A sound-recording sample may be so short as to lack substantial similarity to the musical-work and thus not infringe it. But Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films chucked substantial similarity to hold that the same sample, however short, necessarily infringes the sound-recording reproduction right. This disparate copyright protection between musical works and sound recordings of the same sample has led to the “mashup problem.” Substantial similarity can be broken into two basic types: comprehensive nonliteral similarity and fragmented literal similarity. This paper proposes a framework for applying the fragmented literal similarity test to both musical-work and sound-recording reproduction infringement. First, it describes the framework for musical works based on the innate discretization of musical works as notes. Second, it describes breaking sound recordings into sound snippets and weighs the copied snippets’ quantitative and qualitative values to the copyrighted recording. Third, it outlines applying the framework to Swirsky v. Carey, Bridgeport, and Girl Talk’s sampling recordings.
Can an Inference of Intent to Induce Infringement of a Patent be Drawn Where Other Reasonable Inferences Exist? An Examination of the Use of Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Inducement of Infringement
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Gross, Roy
This Article examines the type of evidence that can be used to prove if an alleged infringer is liable for inducement of infringement. Specifically, this article focuses on examining whether an inference based on circumstantial evidence can show whether the alleged infringer has the requisite state of mind to induce infringement and compares inferences and intent to induce infringement against intent in other areas of patent law.
Convergence?
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Ghosh, Shubha
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Ending Patent Exceptionalism and Structuring the Rule of Reason: The Supreme Court Opens the Door for Both
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Feldman, Robin
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Foreword: The Future of Reverse Payments in the Wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Marsili, Caroline; Palmen, Brandon; Desai, Sarvesh; Connell, Ryan; Punia, Savir; Ferrell, Elliot; Kidd, George; Maloney, Eric; Nomura, Jennifer; Lu, Ude; Suresh, Maya; DeRuyter, Katelyn; Parker, Nihal; Morben, Bryan
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. The following eleven response pieces digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: When Is the Rule of Reason Not the Rule of Reason?
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Cotter, Thomas F.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Hatch-Waxman Patent Case Settlements—The Supreme Court Churns the Swamp
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Bernard, Kent
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Implementing Actavis: Three Tips for Future Courts Assessing Reverse Patent Settlements Under Rule of Reason Analysis
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Krueger, Alexander
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Implications of FTC v. Actavis: A Reasonable Approach to Evaluating Reverse Payment Settlements
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Bieri, Diane E.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
The Preemptive Power of Federal Patent Law: A Framework for Analyzing State Antitrust Challenges to Pay-for-Delay Settlements
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Marsili, Caroline
Since the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act (the Act) in 1984, patent litigation in the pharmaceutical industry has generated a troubling breed of settlement agreements wherein the payment goes from patentee plaintiffs to allegedly infringing defendants, resulting in anticompetitive effects. The provisions of the Act, though intended to promote innovation and lower drug prices while expediting infringement litigation, tend to incentivize reverse payments, or pay-for-delay settlements. The settlements are often challenged by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and by private parties for violation of antitrust law. Thus, pay-for-delay settlements illustrate a tension between patent law and antitrust law. Since the adoption of the Act, courts have struggled to harmonize the two bodies of law with regard to pay-for-delay settlements, as evidenced by the widely divergent rulings on the legality of these settlements among regional circuit courts. In December 2012, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Eleventh Circuit case favoring the pharmaceutical companies, and should enunciate the proper legal standard to apply to pay-for-delay settlements.
A Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play a Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Carrier, Michael A.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
The Role of State Antitrust Law in the Aftermath of Actavis
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Samp, Richard A.
Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. This article is a response piece that will digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
Standardized Terms and Conditions For Open Patenting
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) Maggiolino, Mariateresa; Montagnani, Maria Lillà
After providing a legal characterization of the open patenting phenomenon and discussing many of the empirical and theoretical experiences that relate to both Open Innovation and defensive patenting, this paper suggests standardized terms and conditions that a patent license should contain in order to foster both the free movement of patented knowledge and its business applications.
Trademark Unraveled: The U.S. Olympic Committee Versus Knitters of the World
(Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2013-07-01) David, Marcella
A cease-and-desist letter is a tool commonly used by corporations in their efforts to vindicate the rights they hold in protected words and symbols associated with their business and reputation. Some defend the use of cease-and-desist letters as an effective vehicle. to quickly address legitimate claims of infringement. Others complain that the legitimate use of cease-and-desist letters is increasingly encroached upon by letters that grossly overstate legal claims in an effort to achieve results through intimidation. The proponents and detractors of the use of cease-and-desist letters likely would agree that the rights such letters seek to protect, the law interpreting those rights, and the use of the letters in protection of those rights are complicated by the exponential growth of e-commerce, and that the rise in do-it-yourself e-commerce only compounds the challenges.This article examines the consequences of a notorious and controversial cease-and-desist letter from several perspectives. The letter is a helpful mechanism to understand a specialized grant of trademark rights associated with the Olympic Games, and how those rights might fail to protect the varying interests of the trademark holders, commercial actors, and the public; some modest suggestions explore alternative ways of conceptualizing and vindicating the rights at stake. The article concludes by assessing the letter and subsequent controversy for helpful lessons on lawyering, including the benefits of careful advocacy and creative business approaches, particularly in an e-commerce environment.

University Digital Conservancy

Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "intellectual property law"