Posts Tagged: "Department of Justice"

Missing for a while at the U.S. competition agencies has been an appreciation for how competition works in the real world — in particular, discounting the vital part intellectual property plays in sparking new competition and growing the economic pie. It can be easy to lock in a static view of the economic world.  Or misdefine “competition,” as Robert Bork noted in The Antitrust Paradox.  Fortunately, things are looking up. The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division is now led by someone steeped both in antitrust and innovation.  This breath of fresh air is supplied by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim.

Increasingly, Delrahim’s speeches are moving past where he began in his USC speech in November 2017, discussing this being the appropriate time to now have a discussion about the proper role antitrust enforcement plays with respect to standard setting, to his LeadershIP April 2018 speech where he explained the Antitrust Division will not hesitate to enforce against collusive anticompetitive conduct detrimental to patent owners. Furthermore, Delrahim has now several times discussed his view that in a free market, competition based economy the remedy for patent owners violating obligations to SSOs is a contractual remedy, not an antitrust remedy.

As judges, former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support for your recent announcement that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice will adopt an evidence-based approach in applying antitrust law equally to both innovators who develop and implementers who use technological standards in the innovation industries. We disagree with the letter recently submitted to you on January 24, 2018 by other parties who expressed their misgivings with your announcement of your plan to return to this sound antitrust policy.

It is no surprise to anyone that patent rights in the United States suffered enormously under the two terms served in the White House by President Barack Obama. That the Obama White House was uncomfortably close with Google is widely known, and Google has been the face and driving force of the lobby that supports weakening patent rights in America. What is far less clear, and extremely difficult to explain or understand, is why the Department of Justice continues to make arguments against patents. Indeed, in the DOJ brief filed in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, the Solicitor General argues repeatedly throughout the brief that patents are not private property, but rather are a public right… At the very beginning of the brief filed by the DOJ in Oil States, in the Summary of the Argument, the DOJ stakes its claim and beings by arguing that patents are a public right (not private property) that is akin to a government-conferred franchise.

The lack of regulations here has led to the absolute worst-case scenario. People with disabilities have not been served since most companies are unaware this is an issue. Most don’t even realize this is something they have to consider until they receive a demand letter. That has certainly been the case for some of my clients. This leads to a scramble to get compliant. Unfortunately, it can take up to a year to do so depending on the complexity of the site. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country are taking advantage of the confusion. More than 260 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2016, and significantly more were filed by the end of 2017. But these numbers do not even begin to cover the cases that are settled pre-litigation.

Unlike previous years where we had near unanimity on the biggest moments, this year we see wide variety of thought, from SCOTUS to Capitol Hill to the DOJ… Steve Kunin focus primarily on the Supreme Court patent cases, which Bob Stoll also mentions but then goes on to discuss the lack of momentum for more patent reform and the nomination of a new Director for the USPTO as key moments. Paul Morinville also mentions the political on Capitol Hill, but focuses on Members of Congress not buying into the patent troll narrative like they once did. Erik Oliver focuses on a rebound in the patent market, Alden Abbott sees a pro-innovation, pro-patent Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust as a dramatic shift for the DOJ. Ben Natter, Jess Sblendorio and Alexander Callo focus on the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam, which declared the prohibition against registering disparaging trademarks unconstitutional.

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”.

Why does U.S. policy with respect to patent owners and patent licensing seem to be in direct opposition to U.S. antitrust policy relating to vertical mergers? If vertical mergers are anticompetitive and particularly bad when dealing with a monopolist then why are patent owners, who we are told over and over again are in possession of a limited monopoly, encouraged (if not demanded) to vertically integrate in order to escape characterization as a patent troll?

There is often a tension between the needs of law enforcement and the companies that collect and store the electronic data of individuals. Law enforcement may seek this data from the companies through subpoenas, search warrants, and other court orders as part of its investigation and request that the companies did not disclose their interaction with authorities to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation. In contrast, companies may wish, or be obligated under the terms of their agreements or privacy policies, to disclose to their customers that they have produced the customers’ electronic data to law enforcement pursuant to legal process. To prevent the companies from doing so, federal law enforcement typically obtains a non-disclosure order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) from a federal magistrate court. These orders have generally not had a definite expiration date. However, companies have recently begun to challenge the limits and scope of such orders. The recent case of Microsoft Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. C16-0538 JLR, represents the most serious challenge to date.

The IP Licensing Guidelines, which state the agencies’ antitrust enforcement policy with respect to the licensing of intellectual property protected by patent, copyright, and trade secret law and of know-how, were issued in 1995 and are now being updated. In the agencies’ view, the IP Licensing Guidelines remain soundly grounded, as a matter of antitrust law and economics. Nevertheless, the agencies have determined that some revisions are in order because the IP Licensing Guidelines should accurately reflect intervening changes in statutory and case law.

When patents were brought up in the hearing, however, it seemed to focus mainly on their effects in the pharmaceutical world. Ramirez’s prepared remarks for the hearing touched on pay for delay in pharmaceutical patent infringement settlements, and she noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis has given the FTC a greater capacity to challenge pay for delay schemes in court. Ramirez also stated that a report on the FTC investigation into patent assertion entities (PAEs) will be made available sometime this spring.

New Zealand Judge Nevin Dawson handed down a ruling that would allow the United States to move forward with the extradition of Kim Dotcom, the founder of the former Megaupload.com, one of the world’s most popular file sharing websites at the height of its power. Kim and others involved with Megaupload have been sought under counts of criminal copyright infringement, racketeering, conspiracy to commit money laundering as well as aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The original indictment, filed by the Department of Justice in the Eastern District Court of Virginia back in January 2012, alleged that Kim and other defendants were responsible for $500 million in harm to copyright holders.

The IEEE’s new policy will arbitrarily reduce the level of protection given to Wi-Fi-related patents, impose unconstitutional limits on patent rights, and end the traditional market-based negotiation process for these patents by imposing what amounts to de facto compulsory licensing. Companies that spent many years and billions of dollars in R&D to develop Wi-Fi and other technologies could find themselves unable to recoup their investments.