Dr. Kirti Gupta is Vice President for Technology and Economic Strategy at Qualcomm specializing in Intellectual Property (IP) and Competition issues. She is responsible for leading the substantive direction of the global intellectual property and competition policy and advocacy efforts of Qualcomm, and has been involved in various international antitrust and litigation cases. Kirti has also been responsible for developing economic models for determining Qualcomm’s optimal IP strategy world-wide and on designing algorithms for IP portfolio valuation. Prior to her role as an economist, she spent over a decade as a wireless systems engineering expert, working on research and development of third and fourth generation (3G and 4G) wireless cellular systems and has represented Qualcomm in various global technology standards bodies. Dr. Gupta s a co?inventor of ten granted U.S.patents and several pending patent applications in the field of wireless communications. She holds a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, San Diego.
On November 10, 2017, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) new top antitrust enforcer, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Makan Delrahim, delivered a powerful speech on antitrust law and policy enforcement towards intellectual property rights (IPRs). Former USPTO Director David Kappos described it as “the most important DOJ antitrust speech on IP during my decades practicing law”. … The speech clarifies that the new AAG views “any policy proposals with one-sided focus on hold-up with great skepticism because they pose a serious threat on the innovating process,” and submits that antitrust law should not be misused to police the private commitments such as FRAND that IP holders make to SSOs. In this, the speech agrees with the view shared by several scholars that FRAND commitments are contracts and a potential breach of those commitments may not be best suited under the purview of antitrust law and that “there are perfectly adequate and more appropriate common law and statutory remedies available to the SSO or its members”.
There is no credible evidence behind proposals to make the drastic changes embodied in the Innovation Act, the removal of discretion from judges to judge each case on an individual basis with mandatory stays and fee shifting, and new rules for pleading and discovery that would undermine the ability of legitimate inventors and patent holders from enforcing their rights against infringers.