Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 193 Results in Patents
TOTM The FTC announced a complaint today challenging Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.’s proposed acquisition of an exclusive sublicense from Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, who is in . . .
The FTC announced a complaint today challenging Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.’s proposed acquisition of an exclusive sublicense from Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, who is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo Company. The sublicense would allow Fresenius to manufacturer and supply the intravenous iron drug Venofer to dialysis clinics in the US.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM There’s been a bit of discussion about the “most destructive” decision that is good law around the blogs, e.g. here and here, in response to . . .
There’s been a bit of discussion about the “most destructive” decision that is good law around the blogs, e.g. here and here, in response to John McCain’s criticism of Boumedine calling it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” The line of discussion led me to think about the titular question. Antitrust law has the fairly odd feature that lower court decisions are overturned at a fairly low rate. There are a handful of SCOTUS reversals of old, “bad” precedent, e.g. Leegin overturned Dr. Miles, State Oil overturned Albrecht, Independent Ink overturned the rule that a patent holder was presumed to have market power in tying cases (my analysis here). In fact, prior to Leegin, the SCOTUS had been routinely reversing some bad prior precedent with little discussion (compare the reaction to Leegin to the unanimous State Oil decision on Max RPM in 1997 in which there was zero talk of stare decisis!).
TOTM I’ve posted to SSRN my new article (co-authored by my colleague Bruce Kobayashi), Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup. . . .
I’ve posted to SSRN my new article (co-authored by my colleague Bruce Kobayashi), Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup. We presented an earlier version of our analysis at the George Mason/ Microsoft Conference on the Law and Economics of Innovation and benefited significantly from comments from the discussants and participants. We take an approach grounded in the economics of federalism and recent Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence in arguing for substantive limits on antitrust enforcement of patent holdup in favor of reliance on patent law as well as state common law. Along the way we discuss recent cases and enforcement actions involving patent holdup, including the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Rambus, Broadcom, and N-Data. If you’re a reader interested in patent holdup and related issues, please give the paper a read. Comments welcome (here or email me).
TOTM 2008 has been a busy year for Harvard Professor Einer Elhauge so far from the looks of his SSRN page (not to mention advising Senator . . .
2008 has been a busy year for Harvard Professor Einer Elhauge so far from the looks of his SSRN page (not to mention advising Senator Obama on legal policies). He’s posted three new working papers covering a diverse set of antitrust topics…
TOTM The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic… Read the full piece here.
The D.C. Circuit’s opinion is available here. Here is one of the key passages explaining the D.C. Circuit’s logic…
TOTM Tom Barnett (DOJ Antitrust AG) gave a speech February 29th to the Federalist Society where he touched upon a number of interesting issues we’ve discussed . . .
Tom Barnett (DOJ Antitrust AG) gave a speech February 29th to the Federalist Society where he touched upon a number of interesting issues we’ve discussed from time to time here at TOTM. Some highlights…
TOTM Along with my Lewis & Clark colleague, Joe Miller, I have organized a conference on the patent law doctrine of obviousness following the Supreme Court’s . . .
Along with my Lewis & Clark colleague, Joe Miller, I have organized a conference on the patent law doctrine of obviousness following the Supreme Court’s KSR case last term. It’s a great line-up of participants, and should be an excellent conference.
TOTM A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions . . .
A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth (9th Cir.) and Broadcom v. Qualcomm (3rd Cir.).
TOTM To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information . . .
To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information as it becomes available.
For those looking for a little insight into the case, you might be interested in The FTC’s 1998 Complaint against Intel and the resulting Consent Decree (the entire case file is here).
