Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

18.Unilateral refusals to deal

 

20. Exclusive contracts

 

 

19. The IP/Antitrust Interface

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Simple exclusion
Breach of a FRAND Commitment
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Survey course

 

 
Procedure course

None

 

Significant Precedents

     

Simple Exclusion

MiniFrame Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.

 

MiniFrame Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-cv-7419 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013), aff'd, No. 13-1607-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2013) (summary order) (reported as 551 F..App'x 1).

Second Circuit briefs

Brief and Special Appendix for Plaintiff-Appellant (June 14, 2013)

Brief for Defendant-Appellee (July 19, 2013)

Reply Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (Aug. 2, 2013)

Supreme Court

± Docket No. 14-60

Petition for writ of certiorari

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (July 16, 2014)

Brief in Opposition (Aug. 26, 2014)

Breach of a FRAND Commitment

Microsoft Mobile Inc. v. Interdigital, Inc.

Complaint

Complaint, Microsoft Mobile Inc. v. Interdigital, Inc., No. CV 15-723-RGA (D. Del. filed Aug. 20, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 17, 2016)

Motion to dismiss

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Nov. 4, 2015)

Opening Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Nov. 4, 2015)

Microsoft’s Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Dec. 2, 2015)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Dec. 18, 2015)

Memorandum Order, Microsoft Mobile Inc. v. Interdigital, Inc., No. CV 15-723-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2016)

 

Reference Materials

Guidelines

U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Jan. 12, 2017) (DOJ news release)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, DOJ and FTC Seek Views on Proposed Update of the Antitrust Guidelines for Licensing of Intellectual Property (Aug. 8, 2017)

Prior version: U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Apr. 6, 1995).

U.S. Dep't of Justice & U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments (Jan. 8, 2013).

Renata B. Hesse, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, A Year in the Life of the Joint DOJ-PTO Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND Encumbered Standards-Essential Patents, Remarks as Prepared for the Global Competition Review GCR Live IP & Antitrust USA Conference, Washington, d.C. (Mar. 25, 2014)

Agency reports and hearings

Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition (Mar. 2011).

± FTC web page

± Edith Ramirez & Lisa Kimmel, A Competition Policy Perspective on Patent Law: The Federal Trade Commission’s Report on the Evolving IP Marketplace, Antitrust Source, Aug. 2011.

Henry C. Su, Invention Is Not Innovation and Intellectual Property Is Not Just Like Any Other Form of Property: Competition Themes from the FTC’s Mar. 2011 Patent Report, Antitrust Source, Aug. 2011.

± Richard S. Taffet, The Federal Trade Commission’s Evolving IP Marketplace Report’s Challenge to Inventiveness, Innovation, and Competitiveness, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2012.

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Competition, Patents and Innovation II (DAF/COMP(2009)22, Apr. 1, 2010).

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Competition, Patents and Innovation (DAF/COMP(2007)40, rev. Jan. 8, 2008).

U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (Apr. 2007).

Fed. Trade Comm'n, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy (Oct. 2003).

± U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Antitrust Division & Fed. Trade Comm’n, Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy Hearings (2002).

Economics of innovation

± Ulrich Doraszelski, Rent Dissipation in R&D Races, in 286 Contributions to Economic Analysis 3 (2008).

Some legal background

± Roger A. Ford, Patent Invalidity versus Noninfringement , 99 Cornell L. Rev. 71 (2013).

Economics of patents

± Bronwyn H. Hall & Dietmar Harhoff, Recent Research on the Economics of Patents (NBER Working Paper 17773,

± Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, How Strong Are Weak Patents?, 98 Am. Econ. Rev. 1347 (2008).

± Carl Shapiro, The Design and Use of Patents, IESE-BBVA Lecture, Madrid (Apr. 17, 2007) (slides).

Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, 19 J. Econ. Perspectives 75 (Spring 2005).

General commentary on the IP/antitrust interface

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Antitrust and the Patent System: A Reexamination (U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-27,.June 27, 2015), final version at 76 Ohio St. L.J. 468 (2015).

± Giovanni Immordino & Michele Polo, Antitrust in Innovative Industries: The Optimal Legal Standards (Apr. 17, 2012).

Christina Bohannan & Herbert Hovenkamp, Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation (2011).

Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Chapter 1: Competition Policy and the Scope of Intellectual Property Protection (Nov. 21, 2011).

Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Ch. 3: Harm to Competition or Innovation (Nov. 22, 2011).

Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Chap. 4: Competition Policy and the Patent System (Nov. 22, 2011).

± J. Thomas Rosch, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, The Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface: Thoughts on How To Best Wade Through the Thicket in the Pharmaceutical Context, Remarks Before the World Generic Medicine Congress, Washington, D.C. (Nov. 17, 2010).

± Mark A. Lemley, Industry-Specific Antitrust Policy for Innovation (Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 397, Sept. 1, 2010).

± Giovanni Immordino & Michele Polo, Judicial Errors and Innovative Activity (IGIER Working Paper No. 337, Aug. 2008).

± Mark A. Lemley, A New Balance between IP and Antitrust (Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 340, Apr. 2007), final version at 13 Sw. J.L. & Trade in the Americas 237 (2007).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, IP and Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview (U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-31, Dec. 2005).

Willard K. Tom & Joshua A. Newberg, Antitrust and Intellectual Property: From Separate Spheres to Unified Field, 66 Antitrust :.J. 167 (1997).

Market definition and IP

Mark A. Lemley & Mark P. Mckenna, Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP, 100 Geo. L.J. 2055 (2012).

Unilateral refusals to license

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Chapter 8: Innovation, IP Rights, and Anticompetitive Exclusion (Nov. 14, 2011).

Yannis S. Katsoulacos, Optimal Legal Standards for Refusals to License IP: A Welfare Based Analysis?, 5 J. Competition L. & Econ. 269 (2008).

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, The Strategic Use of Patents: Implications for Antitrust (Sept. 18, 2004).

Collective refusals to deal— licensor boycotts

± Christina Bohannan & Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Concerted Refusals to License Intellectual Property Rights, 1 Harvard Bus. L. Rev. Bull. 21 (2011).

Collective refusals to deal— licensee boycotts

Complaint, Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corp., No. 3:12-cv-01143-MEJ (N.D. Calif. filed Mar. 7, 2012)

Restraints on innovation

± Suzanne Van Arsdale & Cody Venzke, Predatory Innovation In Software Markets, 29 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 243 (2015).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Chapter 6: Restraints on Innovation (Nov. 14, 2011).

Distribution restraints

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Ch. 10: Post-Sale and Related Distribution Restraints Involving IP Rights (Nov. 22, 2011).

Tying arrangements

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Ch. 2: Complementary Products and Processes—The Law of Tying (Nov. 21, 2011).

± Christopher R. Leslie, Patent Tying, Price Discrimination, and Innovation, 77 Antitrust L.J. 811 (2011).

Walker Process

The nature of the claim:

Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965)

Prudential standing to sue:

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp., No. 5:10-CV02787-JF/HR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011) (see below for case study)

In re Netflix Antitrust Litig., 506 F. Supp. 2d 308 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

Exclusionary litigation
 
Patent litigation settlements

± Carl Shapiro, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties (Oct. 19, 2010).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, & Mark A. Lemley, Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes (UC Berkeley, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 113, 2003), final version at 87 Minn. L. Rev. 1719 (2003).

± Joel L. Schrag, The Value of a Second Bite at the Apple: The Effect of Patent Dispute Settlements on Entry and Consumer Welfare (FTC Bureau of Economics Working Paper No. 281, Jan. 2006).

± Carl Shapiro, Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements, 34 RAND J. Econ. 391 (2003).

Cross-licensing
 
Patent pools

± Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, Patent Pools, Litigation and Innovation (Mar. 30, 2012).

± Vianney Dequiedt & Bruno Versaevel, Patent Pools and Dynamic R&D Incentives (May 2012).

± Ryan Lampe & Petra Moser, Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence From 20 U.S. Industries under the New Deal (Aug. 8, 2012).

± Nancy Gallini, Private Agreements for Coordinating Patent Rights: The Case of Patent Pools (June 2011).

± Justus Baron & Henry Delcamp, The strategies of patent introduction into patent pools (2010).

Rudy Santore Michael McKee, & David Bjornstad, Patent Pools as a Solution to Efficient Licensing of Complementary Patents? Some Experimental Evidence, 53J. L. & Econ. 167 (2010).

± Ryan Lampe & Petra Moser, Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry (June 2009), final version at 70 J. Econ. Hist. 898 (2010).

± Jay Pil Choi, Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation (Octt. 2007), final version at 51 Int'l Econ. Rev. 441 (2010).

Richard J. Gilbert, Antitrust for Patent Pools: A Century of Policy Evolution, 2004 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 3 (2004).

Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, Effcient Patent Pools (Sept. 3, 2003), final version at __ Am. Econ. Rev. 691 (2004).

Patent acquisitions

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)

± Fiona Scott Morton & Carl Shapiro, Strategic Patent Acquisitions (July 2, 2013).

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., News Release, CPTN Holdings LLC and Novell Inc. Change Deal in Order to Address Department of Justice’s Open Source Concerns (Apr. 20, 2011).

Fiona M. Scott Morton, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Patent Portfolio Acquisitions: An Economic Analysis, Presented at the Fifth Annual Searle Conference on Antitrust Economics and Competition Policy, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL (Sept. 21, 2012).

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Standard Setting (DAF/COMP(2010)33, Mar. 8, 2011).

Nonpracticing entities (NPEs)

Assurance of Discontinuance, In re Investigation by Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, of MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (Jan. 13, 2014)

Complaint, MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. FTC, No. 6:14-cv-11 (W.D. Tex. filed Jan. 13, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 23, 2014)

Exhibit F: FTC draft complaint

Commentary

± Mark A. Lemley & , A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls (Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 443, May 23, 2013).

± Mark S. Popofsky & Michael D. Laufert, Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers, Antitrust, Apr. 2013.

± Michael Carrier, Patent Assertion Entities: Six Actions the Antitrust Agencies Can Take, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, Jan. 29, 2013,

± Fed. Trade Comm’n, Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop (Dec. 10, 2012),

± Brian Yeh, An Overview of the ‘Patent Trolls’ Debate, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Aug. 20, 2012).

± Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Evolving IP Marketplace Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition (2011)

Standard-setting and patent hold ups

Complaint, In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, No. C-4234 (FTC Sept. 23, 2008) (news release) (see below for case study).

 

Commentary:

± Luke M. Froeb, Bernhard Ganglmair & Gregory J. Werden, Patent Hold Up and Antitrust: How a Well-Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation (Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 11-3, Dec. 3, 2010), final version at 60 J. Indus. Econ. 249 (2012).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Patent Deception in Standard Setting: The Case for Antitrust Policy (U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper, July 20, 2010).

± Joel M. Wallace, Rambus v. F.T.C. in the Context of Standard-Setting Organizations, Antitrust, and the Patent Hold-Up Problem, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 661 (2009).

± Thomas F. Cotter, Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses, 34 J. Corp. L. 1151 (2009).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Patent Continuations, Patent Deception, and Standard Setting: The Rambus and Broadcom Decisions (U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-25, May 2008).

± Joseph Farrell, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro &Theresa Sullivan, Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-Up, 74 Antitrust L.J. 603 (2007).

± Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007).

Standards-essential patents (SEPs)

Government policy statements and speeches

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on its Decision to Close its Investigation of Samsung's Use of its Standards-Essential Patents (Feb. 7, 2014)

U.S. Dept. of Justice & U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/Rand Commitments (Jan. 8, 2013).

Renata B. Hesse, Dep. Ass't Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Six “Small” Proposals for SSOs before Lunch: Remarks as Prepared for the ITU-T Patent Roundtable (Oct. 10, 2012).

Joseph F. Wayland, Acting Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Statement Regarding Oversight of the Impact on Competition of Exclusion Orders to Enforce Standards-Essential Patents, Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate (July 12, 2012).

Fed. Trade Comm'n, Prepared Statement of The Federal Trade Commission Concerning “Oversight of the Impact on Competition of Exclusion Orders to Enforce Standard- Essential Patents,” Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (July 11, 2012) (dilivered by Comm'r Edith Ramirez).

Commentary

± Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents (Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2243026, Mar. 30, 2013).

± Thomas F. Cotter, The Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties (Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-40, Aug. 29, 2013).

± James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes (B.U. School of Law Working Papr No. 12-34, rev. June 28, 2012).

FRAND commitments

Renata B. Hesse, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, A Year in the Life of the Joint DOJ-PTO Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND Encumbered Standards-Essential Patents, Remarks as Prepared for the Global Competition Review GCR Live IP & Antitrust USA Conference, Washington, d.C. (Mar. 25, 2014)

Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND (Feb. 3, 2014).

Dennis W. Carlton & Allan L. Shampine, An Economic Interpretation of FRAND (Apr. 24, 2013), final version at 9 J. Competition L. Econ. 531 (2013).

Roger G. Brooks & Damien Geradin, Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND Commitment (July 20, 2010), final version at 9 Int'l J. IT Standards & Standardization Research 1 (2011).

Roger G. Brooks & Damien Geradin, Taking Contracts Seriously: The Meaning of the Voluntary Commitment to License Essential Patents on 'Fair and Reasonable' Terms (Mar. 12, 2010).

Damien Geradin & Miguel Rato, FRAND Commitments and EC Competition Law (Dec. 23, 2009).

Philippe Chappatte, FRAND Commitments—The Case for Antitrust Intervention, 5 Eur. Competition J. 319 (2009).

Christopher B. Hockett & Rossana G. Lipscomb, Best FRANDs Forever? Standard-Setting Antitrust Enforcement in the United States and the European Union, Antitrust, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Summer 2009), at 19.

Marcus Glader, FRAND Licensing Obligations and Industry Standards, PowerPoint Presentation for the Jevons Institute for Competition law and Economics, London (May 10, 2007).

Anne Layne-Farrar, A. Jorge Padilla & Richard Schmalensee, Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of Frand Commitments (CEMFI Working Paper No. 0702, Jan. 2007), final version at 74 Antitrust L.J. 671 (2007).

Daniel G. Swanson & William J. Baumol, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power, 73 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2005).

FRAND rate determinations

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013)

See Verdict Form (Sept. 4, 2013) (finding Motorola breached its obligation to license its standard-essential patents to Microsoft on fair terms and awarded Microsoft $11.5 million in compensation for costs incurred in relocating a distribution center in Germany after Motorola sought an injunction against Microsoft products in that country and, finding that Motorola had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, ordering Motorola to pay $3 million to cover Microsoft's attorneys fees)

IP misuse

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Innovation and Competition Policy, Chapter 7: Intellectual Property Misuse (Nov. 21, 2011).

Reverse payments patent settlements

In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., Nos. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-2079, 10-4571 (3d Cir. July 16, 2012) (reported at 686 F.3d 197)

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants and Urging Reversal (May 18, 2011)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Aug. 24, 2012)

FTC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., No. 10-12729 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2012) (reported at 677 F.3d 1298)

Arkansas Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, Nos. 05-2851-cv(L), 05-2852-cv(CON) (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2010) (reported at 604 F.3d 98), reh'g denied, Nos. 05-2851-cv(L), 05-2852-cv(CON) (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2010) (reported at 625 F.3d 779)

Brief Amicus Curiae of Federal Trade Commission in Support of Rehearing En Banc (May 20, 2010)

In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., No. 2008-1097 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2008) (reported at 544 F.3d 1323), aff'g 363 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission in Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal (Feb. 8, 2008)

In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., No. 03-7641 (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2006) (reported as 466 F.3d 187) , amending and superseding No. 03-7641 (2d Cir. Nov. 2, 2005) (reported as 429 F.3d 370)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Nov. 30, 2005)

Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, No. 04-10688 (11th Cir. Mar. 8, 2005) (reported at 402 F.3d 1056)

Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., No. 02-10171 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2003) (reported at 344 F.3d 1294), vacating sub nom. In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 203 F.R.D. 551 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., No. 00-2483 (6th Cir. June 13, 2003) (reported at 332 F.3d 896)

Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int'l, Nos. 00 5050 & 00 5396 (D.C. Cir. July 31, 2001) (reported at 256 F.3d 799)

EC applications

± Damien Geradin, Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in a Standard-Setting Context: A View from Europe (July 2008).

± Damien Geradin, Abusive Pricing in an IP Licensing Context: An EC Competition Law Analysis (June 2007).

Case Studies

Fitbit/Jawbone (private 2015)
Shuffle Tech/Bally (private 2015)
Ritz Camera
Google/MMI (DOJ 2012)
Google/MMI (EU 2012)
N-Data (FTC 2008)
Rambus (FTC 2002)

Fitbit/Jawbone
(private 2015)

Complaint for Patent Infringement, Fitbit, Inc., v. Aliphcom d/ba Jawbone, No. 5:15-cv-04073 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015).

 

Defendants Aliphcom d/b/a Jawbone and Body Media, Inc.’s Answer and Counterclaims (Oct. 30, 2015)

Shuffle Tech/Bally
(private 2015)

Complaint for Damages and Other Relief for Patent Misuse, Violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Lanham Act and Illinois Unfair Competition and Deceptive Trade Practices Laws, Shuffle Tech Int'l, LLC v. Scientific Games Corp., No 15 C 3702 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 28, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 21, 2015)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (June 26, 2015)

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (June 26, 2015)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (July 17, 2015)

Defendants’ Reply Brief in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (July 30, 2015)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Oct. 12, 2015) (reported at 2015 WL 5934834)

First Amended Complaint for Damages and Other Relief for Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Oct. 26, 2015)

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses (Nov. 16, 2015)

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp.
(private 2010)

First Amended Complaint, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp., No. 5:10-CV02787-JF/HR (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 25, 2010).

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 12, 2012).

Notice of Motion and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Oct. 1, 2010).

Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Oct. 1, 2010).

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC's Opposition to Defendant Sandisk Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Request for Judicial Notice (Nov. 10, 2010).

Defendants’ Reply In Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Nov. 30, 2010).

Transcript of argument (Dec. 17, 2010).

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Feb. 24, 2011)

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Certify the Court’s Walker Process Standing Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal (Mar. 11, 2011).

Defendant’s Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Certify the Court’s Walker Process Standing Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal (Mar 14, 2011).

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC’s Opposition to Sandisk Corporation’s Motion to Certify the Court’s Walker Process Standing Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal (Apr. 15, 2011).

Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Certify the Court’s Walker Process Standing Ruling for Interlocutory Appeal (Apr. 22, 2011).

Transcript of argument (May 6, 2011)

Order Granting Request to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Sept. 7, 2011) (not for publication)

Order Administratively Closing Action (Oct. 27, 2011)

Interlocutory appeal:

Order, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp., No. 2011-M101 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2012) (granting permission for interlocutory appeal) (clerk's letter)

Google/MMI—U.S.

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, 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).

Google/MMI—EU

Case No. COMP M.6381, Google/ Motorola Mobility, Commission decision of 13 February 2012 (Article 6(1)(b) Non-Opposition)

N-Data
(FTC 2008)

Complaint, In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, No. C-4234 (FTC Sept. 23, 2008) (news release)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (Sept. 23, 2008)
Decision and Order (Sept. 23, 2008)
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Sept. 23, 2008)
Statement of the Commission (Sept. 23, 2008)
Dissenting Statement of Chairman Majoras (Sept. 23, 2008)
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Kovacic (Sept. 23, 2008)

± Public comments received by the Commission

Decision and Order (Sept. 23, 2008)

± FTC web page

Rambus
(FTC 2002)

Administrative Complaint, In re Rambus Inc., No. 9302 (FTC June 18, 2002) (news release).

Administrative trial:

Complaint Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment Relating to Respondent Rambus Inc.'s Willful, Bad-Faith Destruction of Material Evidence (Dec. 20, 2002)

Memorandum by Rambus Inc. in Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion for Default Judgment (Jan. 15, 2003)

Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Reply to Rambus Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Default Judgment (Jan. 28, 2003)

Motion Seeking Recognition of the Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Factual Findings That Respondent Rambus Inc. Destroyed Material Evidence in Anticipation of Future Litigation and Proposed Order (Feb. 12, 2003)

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Complaint Counsel’s Pending Motion for Default Judgment, Relating to Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Factual Finding That Respondent Rambus Inc. Destroyed Material Evidence in Bad Faith (Feb. 12, 2003)

Rambus, Inc.’s Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s (1) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Default Judgment, and (2) Motion Seeking Recognition of the Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Factual Findings Underlying Portions of the Judgment in Infineon Now Vacated by the Federal Circuit (Feb. 24, 2003)

ALJ Order Granting Complaint Counsel's Motion for Collateral Estoppel (Feb. 26, 2003)

Application for Review of the February 26, 2003 Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Collateral Estoppel Pursuant to Rule 3.23(b) or, in the Alternative, Request for Reconsideration of That Order (Mar. 5, 2003)

Response To Rambus’s Application For Review Of February 26, 2003, Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion For Collateral Estoppel Or, In The Alternative, Request For Reconsideration (Mar. 11, 2003)

Reply Brief in Support of Respondent’s Application for Review of the February 26, 2003 Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Collateral Estoppel Pursuant to Rule 3.23(b) or, in the Alternative, Request for Reconsideration of That Order (Mar. 13, 2003)

Administrative Law Judge’s Order Denying Respondent's Applications for Review of February 26, 2003, Order (granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Collateral Estoppel) and February 28, 2003, Order (granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Compel Discovery Relating to Subject Matters as to Which Rambus’s Privilege Claims Were Invalidated on Crime-fraud Grounds and Subsequently Waived); Denying Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of the February 26 Order; and Granting Respondents Request for Reconsideration of the February 28 Order (Mar. 26, 2003)

ALJ Order on Complaint Counsel's Motions for Default Judgment and for Oral Argument (Feb. 26, 2003)

Request for Immediate Clarification of February 26, 2003 Order on Complaint Counsel’s Motions for Default Judgment and for Oral Argument and Proposed Order (Feb. 27, 2003)

ALJ Order Denying Request for Clarification (Feb. 27, 2003)

Rambus Inc.'s Motion for Summary Decision (Feb. 27, 2003)

Memorandum in Support of Respondent Rambus Inc.’s Motion for Summary Decision (Feb. 28, 2003)

Respondent Rambus Inc.’s Rule 3.24 Separate Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue (Mar. 4, 2003)

Supplemental Rule 3.24 Separate Statement in Support of Rambus Inc.'s Motion for Summary Decision (Mar. 18, 2003)

Supplemental Declaration of Steven M. Perry in Support of Rule 3.24 Separate Statement in Support of Rambus Inc.'s Motion for Summary Decision (Mar. 18, 2003)

Complaint Counsel's Memorandum In Opposition To Respondent Rambus Inc.'s Motion for Summary Decision (Apr. 9, 2003)

Reply Memorandum of Rambus Inc. in Support of Motion for Summary Decision and Accompanying Certification (Apr. 7, 2003)

Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision (Apr. 15, 2003)

Trial Brief of Respondent Rambus Inc. (Apr. 22, 2003)

Complaint Counsel's Pretrial Brief (Apr. 25, 2003)

± Trial transcripts

Complaint Counsel's Post-Hearing Brief (Sept. 9, 2003)

Complaint Counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Sept. 9, 2003)

Initial Post-Trial Brief of Respondent Rambus Inc. (Sept. 9, 2003)

Respondent Rambus Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Sept. 9, 2003)

Post-Trial Reply Brief of Respondent Rambus Inc. (Sept. 29, 2003)

Complaint Counsel's Response To Respondent's Post-Trial Brief (Sept. 30, 2003)

Order of the Administrative Law Judge Dismissing the Complaint (Feb. 17, 2004)

Initial Decision (Feb. 24, 2004) (news release)

Appeal to the Commission—Merits:

Complaint Counsel's Notice of Appeal (Mar. 1, 2004)

Appeal Brief of Counsel Supporting the Complaint (Apr. 22, 2004)

Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Rambus Inc. (June 2, 2004)

Reply Brief of Counsel Supporting the Complaint (June 7, 2004)

Attachment A
Attachment B

Rebuttal Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Rambus Inc. (July16, 2004)

Opinion of the Commission (Aug. 2, 2004) (news release)

Order Reversing and Vacating Initial Decision and Accompanying Order, Scheduling Supplemental Briefing on Issues of Remedy, and Denying Complaint Counsel's Motion for Sanctions (Aug. 2, 2004)

Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Jon Leibowitz (Aug. 2, 2006)

Appeal to the Commission—Remedy:

Brief of Respondent Rambus Inc. Addressing Issues Relating to Remedy (Sept. 15, 2006)

Brief of Counsel Supporting the Complaint on the Issue of Remedy (Sept. 18, 2006 rev. Sept. 29, 2006)

Reply Brief of Respondent Rambus Inc., Addressing Issues Relating to Remedy (Sept. 29, 2006)

Complaint Counsel's Reply Brief on Remedy (Sept. 29, 2006)

Oral argument transcript (Nov. 15, 2006)

Opinion of the Commission On Remedy (Feb. 5, 2007)

Final Order (Feb. 5, 2007)

Remedy Statement of Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Feb. 5, 2007)

Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Feb. 5, 2007)

Order and Opinion of the Commission Granting In Part and Denying In Part Respondent's Motion For Stay of Final Order Pending Appeal (Mar. 16, 2007)

Appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit:

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 14, 2012)

Brief filed by Petitioner Rambus Inc (Sept. 21, 2007)

Brief for the Respondent (Nov. 21, 2007)

Reply Brief lodged by Petitioner Rambus Inc. (Dec. 21, 2007)

Final Brief filed by Petitioner Rambus Inc. (Jan. 11, 2008)

Final Brief filed by Respondent Federal trade Commission (Jan. 11, 2008)

Final Reply Brief filed by Petitioner Rambus Inc. (Jan. 11, 2008)

Final Brief for Respondent Federal Trade Commission (Feb. 14, 2008)

 

Opinion, Rambus Inc. v. FTC, Nos. 07-1086, 07-1124 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 22, 2008) (on Petitions for Review of Final Orders of the Federal Trade Commission)

Judgment (Apr. 22, 2008) (petitions for review are granted, the Commission's orders are set aside, and the cases are remanded for the reasons in the accompanying opinion)

Petition of Respondent Federal Trade Commission for Rehearing En Banc (June 6, 2008)

 

Supreme Court

± Docket sheet (No. 08-694)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Nov. 24, 2008) (including Appendix Volume 1)

Appendix Volume 2

Opposition brief filed (Jan. 23, 2009)

Brief of Amici Curiae American Antitrust Institute, Consumer Federation of America and Public Patent Foundation in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Dec. 29, 2008)

Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari of Advanced Media Workflow Association (AMWA); Consumer Electronics Association (CEA); Globalplatform Inc.; IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. (IMS); International Imaging Industry Association, Inc. (I3A); IPC, Association Connecting Electronics Industries; Linux Foundation; Midi Manufactures Association; Mobile Printing and Imaging Consortium, Inc.; Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC); Opensaf Foundation; Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (Oasis); PICMG-PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group, Inc. (PICMG); Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE); The Open Group (TOG); The Software Defined Radio Forum, Inc.; Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA); Vmebus International Trade Association (VITA); Xbrl International, Inc. (Dec. 29, 2009)

Reply Brief for the Petitioner (Feb. 4, 2009)

Petition denied (Feb. 23, 2009) (reported at 129 U.S. 1318)

Remand to the Commission:

Complaint Counsel's Motion to Withdraw this Matter from Adjudication (Feb. 25, 2009)

Order Withdrawing Matter From Adjudication (Mar. 6, 2009)

Order Returning Matter To Adjudication and Dismissing Complaint (Mar. 14, 2009) (news release)

± FTC web page

 

18. Unilateral refusals to deal

20. Exclusive contracts