A primer on US antitrust claims against patentees under Walker Process

Legal context: In the wake of two recent cases from the Federal Circuit onthe subject, this article provides an introduction to the WalkerProcess doctrine under US law. Under the doctrine, a patenteewho knowingly enforces a patent procured by intentional fraudon the patent office may lose its immunity to antitrust claims,should it act to enforce its patent. Key points: Walker Process fraud refers to a knowing and deliberate fraudperpetrated on the patent office as opposed to mere acts ofinequitable conduct. Proving that a patent applicant engagedin Walker Process fraud does not by itself prove liability foran antitrust violation. The accused infringer must still provethe individual elements of an antitrust claim. Antitrust claimsbased on Walker Process fraud require significant time and resourcesto litigate. Practical significance: With the allure of mandatory treble damages and attorney's fees,antitrust claims based on Walker Process fraud can serve asa potent counterclaim for an accused infringer's arsenal. Butthe legal requirements and resources needed to successfullylitigate these claims to a conclusion may temper their effectivenessfor the typical patent-infringement suit.     

A step back in time: nineteenth century US patent law revisited

‘A book may be good for nothing; or there may be onlyone thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?’(Samuel Johnson) This section is dedicated to the review ofideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will includereplies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of newideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directlyand indirectly related to intellectual property law.

A Treatise on the Law of Patents for Useful Inventions, FourthEdition By George T. Curtis 1873; Boston: Little Brown Books.Reprinted 2006; Clerk, New Jersey: Lawbook Exchange. Price:US$150, ISBN: 1584775807, pages xxxvii + 749   In the United Kingdom, the great patent treatise of the twentiethcentury     

THE STOCHASTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATENTS AND ANTITRUST

This article develops a novel theory by which to construe theinteraction between the patent and antitrust laws. The rulesof these respective disciplines are often portrayed as conflictingin means, yet harmonious in purpose. Although the intellectualproperty and antitrust laws have ostensibly divergent viewson the role of competition, their interaction is typically limitedto one of constraint. More specifically, antitrust rules havebeen (poorly) designed to limit the exclusivity inherent ina patent grant to the claimed invention alone. This article,however, articulates a new vision for the role of antitrust:it posits that competition rules operate as a stochastic regulatorof exclusionary patent rights. The Sherman Act constrains patentees'efforts to positively transform the probabilistic nature oftheir intellectual property rights through contract. Yet, becausethe empirical calculation of optimal innovation rates is anelusive, if not Sisyphean, task, the normative desirabilityof the foregoing fact is abstruse. Nevertheless, policymakers'inability to pinpoint precisely the ex post rewards requiredto trigger ideal levels of ex ante investment need not bindour hands to inaction. If contemporary rates of innovation aredeemed acceptable (even if not necessarily perfect), there maybe ways to trigger equivalent levels of ex ante investment withlower social cost. In this regard, it is clear that currentlyenacted competition rules significantly accentuate the uncertaintysurrounding patents' apotropaic effect. Concluding that contractssecuring otherwise stochastic rights may be highly desirable,the article calls for the incorporation of this concern intocontemporary rules, with modest substantive effect, and furtheradvocates a qualified antitrust immunity for "gold-plated" patentsif and when they are introduced.     

PATENT HOLDUP AND OLIGOPSONISTIC COLLUSION IN STANDARD-SETTING ORGANIZATIONS

Current controversies over patent policy place standard-settingorganizations (SSOs) on a collision course with antitrust law.Recent theoretical research conjectures that, in an SSO, patentowners can "hold up" patent users in the sense of demandinghigh royalties for a patented input after the SSO has adoptedthe patented technology as an industry standard and manufacturerswithin the SSO have incurred sunk costs to design end productsthat incorporate that standard. Consistent with this conjecture,actual SSOs have recently sought no-action letters from theAntitrust Division for a variety of amendments to SSO rulesthat would require or request, at the time a standard is underconsideration, the ex ante disclosure by the patent owner ofthe maximum royalty that the patent owner would charge underthe regime of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory licensing.This price information—which is characterized as the "cost"of the patented input—would, under at least one recentSSO rule modification, be a permissible topic for potentialusers of the patent to discuss when deciding whether to selectit in lieu of some alternative standard. This exchange of informationamong horizontal competitors would occur ostensibly becausethe cost of the patented technology had been characterized assimply one more technical attribute of the standard to be set,albeit an important technical attribute. The Antitrust Divisionand the Federal Trade Commission have jointly stated that suchdiscussion, by prospective buyers who are competitors in thedownstream market, of the price of a patented invention thatmight become part of an industry standard should be subjectto antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason rather than therule of per se illegality. The rationale that the antitrustagencies offer for applying the rule of reason to such conductis that such horizontal collaboration might avert patent holdup.The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) similarly endorsedthe view that rule-of-reason analysis is appropriate for exante discussion of royalty terms by competing buyers of patentedtechnology. This rule-of-reason approach, however, is problematicbecause it conflicts with both the body of economic researchon bidder collusion and with the antitrust jurisprudence oninformation exchange and facilitation of collusion. Put differently,because of their concern over the possibility of patent holdup,the U.S. antitrust agencies and the AMC in effect have indicatedthat they may be willing in at least some circumstances to forgoenforcement actions against practices that facilitate oligopsonisticcollusion by encouraging the ex ante exchange of informationamong competitors concerning the price to be paid for a patentedinput as an implicit condition of those competitors' endorsementof that particular patented technology for adoption in the industrystandard. However, neither the proponents of these SSO policiesnor the antitrust agencies and the AMC have offered any theoreticalor empirical foundation for their implicit assumption that theexpected social cost of patent holdup exceeds the expected socialcost of oligopsonistic collusion. This conclusion does not changeeven if one conjectures that such collusion will benefit consumersby enabling licensees to pass through royalty reductions intheir pricing of the downstream product incorporating the patentedtechnology. Proper economic evaluation of the plausibility ofthe pass-through conjecture will require information about thecalculation of royalty payments; the demand and supply elasticitiesfacing the licensees; and the structure of any industries furtherdownstream between the manufacturer and the final consumer.Consequently, the magnitude of this effect will likely be amatter of empirical dispute in every case. Moreover, such ajustification for tolerating horizontal price fixing finds nosupport in antitrust jurisprudence. Given the analytical andfactual uncertainty over whether patent holdup is a seriousproblem, it is foreseeable that antitrust questions of firstimpression will arise and affect a wide range of high-technologyindustries that rely on SSOs. However, there is no indicationthat scholars and policy makers have seriously considered whetheroligopsonistic collusion in SSOs is a larger problem than patentholdup.     

Patent construction after Amgen: are patent claims construed more widely or narrowly than previously?

Legal context. This article considers the UK Courts' approachto patent construction since the House of Lords' decision inKirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited, which washanded down in October 2004, and seeks to examine whether theUK Courts' construction of patents is wider or narrower thanpreviously. Key points. The available data appear to suggest that thereis little difference in outcome, whether the old Improver testis applied or the new Kirin-Amgen test; of more significanceremains the nature of the wording of the patent claims themselvesand the correct identification by the trial judge of the inventionunderlying the patent. Practical significance. By eschewing a literal approach andrefining the test used in order to ensure both compliance withthe EPC and consistency with courts in other European countries,the UK Courts continue to provide an attractive forum for resolutionof patent disputes.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

Court finds software patent wilfully infringed but refuses to enjoin the infringement

In the wake of the US Supreme Court's recent decision in eBayv MercExchange, a Texas district court has refused to enjoinMicrosoft's ongoing patent infringement, holding that no presumptionof irreparable injury should be given to the patentee even whenthe patent is upheld by a jury and is found to be wilfully infringed.     

Civilized Squatting

This article seeks to trace the origins of the requirement thata squatter must have an intention to possess (animus possidendi)in order to establish title by adverse possession. The requirementhas been confirmed by the House of Lords in the recent caseof Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419. Its origins canreadily be traced back to the decision of the Court of Appealin Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19, but thereis little evidence of any need for intention before that case,and no convincing authority is cited for it. Possible explanationsfor the source of this requirement are considered by the article(for instance cases on re-entry by landlords and the so-called‘found chattel’ cases), but these are ultimatelyrejected. The article goes on to suggest that the reason forthis is that the intention requirement was ‘imported’into English law from German Pandectist writers of the nineteenthcentury. It suggests that Littledale was the case in which thishappened. It seeks to support this hypothesis by reference tobiographical details of Lindley MR, who gave the leading judgmentin Littledale, and who not only trained in part in Germany butalso took an active interest in German scholarship of the time.A brief survey of the relevant German sources is undertaken,focusing primarily on the work of Savigny, but also consideringthe rival theory of Jhering. Finally, it tracks the developmentand refinement of the content of animus possidendi, first by19th century legal scholars and then by 20th century judges,to make it ‘fit’ with English property law. It seeksto address the question of whether the animus possidendi requirementis a free-standing element (the ‘strong’ will theory),or whether it is simply implied from the acts of the squatter(the ‘weak’ will theory), and suggests a solutionby reference to the German sources and later English cases.Finally, it considers how the House of Lords decision in Pyereflects the logical culmination of the acceptance of this ‘legaltransplant’ into the common law.     

Comparative advertising and celebrity photographs--fair dealing under the CDPA 1988

Legal context. Legal context. This article reviews the conceptof ‘fair dealing’ under Copyright Designs and PatentsAct 1988, section 30. It does so in the context of to recentcases concerning the fair dealing defence, IPC Media Ltd v NewsGroup Newspapers Ltd and Fraser Woodward Ltd v BBC are considered. Key points. The traditional approach of courts to ‘fairdealing’ is based upon a number of ‘factors’considered relevant in determining whether a use of a copyrightwork is fair. The article argues that there are a number ofproblems with this approach. In particular, it claims that theapproach is unsystematic and rests upon a number of questionableassumptions. It suggests that the decision of Hart J in IPCMedia Ltd demonstrates these problems to a very significantdegree. In contrast, that of Mann J in Fraser Woodward Ltd provideswelcome guidance on the application of the concept of fairnessin certain cases. Practical significance. The criticisms made in this articlehighlight a number of discrepancies in the existing case lawand suggest a need for closer consideration and greater disciplinein decision-making in this area.     

The Problem with Entrapment

In R v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of2000) the House of Lords articulated a legal framework to govern‘entrapment’ in criminal cases. Their Lordshipsregarded the need for judicial intervention to assist entrappeddefendants as uncontroversial. This article argues that thedoctrine they set out, in fact, necessitates substantial, andlargely unarticulated, departures from principles the courtsordinarily stress as fundamental to the criminal law. In particular,entrapment doctrine determines liability for criminal acts byreference to the kind of environment inhabited by their perpetrators,a perspective the law ordinarily attempts to exclude. This articlesuggests that the anomalous treatment of entrapment can be understoodas a device to prevent the police from relocating the temptationto commit crime to environments in which they are not ordinarilyconfronted and to ensure that those from backgrounds in whichserious criminality is not usually a plausible option will escapepunishment if tempted to commit crime by the police.     

Sourcing from China: stopping the IP leaks from your clients' supply chain

Legal context: It is no secret that IP in China is a challenge. However, commercialactivity in or with China is now predictable enough that companiescan, and should, plan for it by taking control of their supplychain. This requires a combination of legal and practical measures.This article sets out some of these steps. Key points: In order to minimize the risks of IP leakage their supply chainsin China, there are three key stages of protection: (i) Pre-sourcing;(ii) Negotiating strong contracts with suppliers; and (iii)Managing the relationship with your supply chain. Practical significance: If your clients do business in China or source products fromhere and cannot answer the following questions, their IP isat risk of infringement. They need to take steps to proactivelymanage their supply chain.

• Do your clients know which factoryis producing their products?How many links are in your clientssupply chain, each one increasingthe chances for IP infringement?
• Do your clients' agreements with their suppliers adequatelyprotect their IP?
• Have your clients taken steps to prevent‘midnight productionruns’ and ‘backdoor sales’by their suppliers?
• How is the IP being provided to them?Do your clients need togive them everything for production?
• What steps have been taken post-production to ensure thatyourclients' suppliers don't continue to manufacture theirproducts?

     

The Commission's AstraZeneca decision: delaying generic entry is an abuse of a dominant position

The European Commission's recent AstraZeneca decision introducesabuse of the patent system as a novel type of infringement ofArticle 82 EC.     

Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law

We address the patent/antitrust conflict in licensing and developthree guiding principles for deciding acceptable terms of license.Profit neutrality holds that patent rewards should not dependon the rightholder’s ability to work the patent himself.Derived reward holds that the patentholder’s profits shouldbe earned, if at all, from the social value created by the invention.Minimalism holds that licenses should not be more restrictivethan necessary to achieve neutrality. We argue that these principlesare economically sound and rationalize some key decisions ofthe twentieth century such as General Electric and Line Material.     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

Jesting at scars that never felt a wound: The US Supreme Court's new doctrine of licensee standing without breach

Until recently, it was assumed that patent licensees in compliancewith terms of their licence agreements would lack ‘standing’to sue their licensors, but in MedImmune v Genentech, the SupremeCourt of the United States held that federal courts in the UShave jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions by patentlicensees asserting the invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringementof a licensed patent, even where the licensee is in full compliancewith the licence agreement.     

Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.     

Irish 'Lipitor' litigation: High Court favours broad claim construction

In its first significant judgment on claim construction in over25 years, Ireland's High Court approved the principles laiddown by the English House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen, holding thatWarner-Lambert's ‘Lipitor’ patent is not limitedto a racemic mixture and refusing Ranbaxy a declaration of non-infringement.     

Mal dato, ma ben ricevuto

Mal dato, ma ben ricevuto is a rather untranslatable Italianexpression which refers to acts that are based on wrong assumptionsbut whose final results (might) make everybody better off. MsSueffert's article is a good example. In her article, Ms Sueffertsuggests that the USPTO might reduce patent examiners' workloads—andthe resulting tendency towards granting patents that shouldnot be granted in the first place—by using ‘softscientists’ (psychologists, economists, political scientists,