scholarly journals Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Exchange Information ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Industrial Context ◽  
Narrow Class

The overwhelming majority of intellectual property lawsuits settle beforetrial. These settlements involve agreements between the patentee and theaccused infringer, parties who are often competitors before the lawsuit.Because these competitors may agree to stop competing, to regulate theprice each charges, and to exchange information about products and prices,settlements of intellectual property disputes naturally raise antitrustconcerns. In this paper, we suggest a way to reconcile the interests ofintellectual property law and antitrust law in evaluating intellectualproperty settlements. In Part I, we provide background on the issue. PartII argues that in most cases courts can determine the legality of asettlement agreement without inquiring into the merits of the intellectualproperty dispute being settled, either because the settlement would belegal even if the patent were invalid or not infringed, or because thesettlement would be illegal even if the patent were valid and infringed.Only in a narrow class of cases will the merits of the intellectualproperty dispute matter. In Part III, we argue that in that narrow middleset of cases antitrust's rule of reason is unlikely to be helpful. Rather,courts must inquire into the validity, enforceability, and infringementissues in the underlying case, with particular sensitivity to both the typeof intellectual property right at issue and the industrial context of thedispute. In Part IV, we apply our framework to a number of commonsettlement terms, most notably the use of exclusion payments to settlepharmaceutical patent disputes. We argue that exclusion payments thatexceed litigation costs should be deemed illegal per se. There is nolegitimate reason for such payments, and the most likely reason - to permitthe patentee to exclude competition that would likely have occurred absentthe payment - is anticompetitive. Further, legitimate patent disputes canbe settled in other ways than with an exclusion payment - for example, bylicensing the defendant or by agreeing to delay entry.

scholarly journals Unilateral Refusals to License in the U.S.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

Most antitrust claims relating to intellectual property involve challengesto agreements, licensing practices or affirmative conduct involving the useor disposition of the intellectual property rights or the products theycover. But sometimes an antitrust claim centers on an intellectual propertyowner's refusal to use or license an intellectual property right, perhapscoupled with efforts to enforce the intellectual property right againstinfringers. The allegation may be that the intellectual property right isso essential to competition that it must be licensed across the board, orthat a refusal to license it to one particular party was discriminatory, orthat in context a refusal to license helped a monopolist to acquire ormaintain market power.Claims based on a unilateral refusal to license - the subject of thischapter - present important issues at the center of the tension betweenantitrust and intellectual property. The antitrust and intellectualproperty laws are not necessarily in conflict. For the most part they servecomplementary goals, though each must limit the scope of the other.Unilateral refusal to license cases, however, cut to the heart of theintellectual property owner's right to exclude others from practicing theintellectual property. As such, efforts to invoke antitrust law in thiscontext deserve special scrutiny.Section 2 reviews the basic principles relating to unilateral refusals tolicense intellectual property rights. Section 3 discusses in detail thevarious sets of circumstances in which antitrust plaintiffs argue forexceptions to those basic rules. Section 4 distinguishes unilateral fromconcerted and conditional refusals to deal.

Actions for Infringement of a Foreign Intellectual Property Right in an English Court

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-925
Author(s):  
Stuart Dutson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Property Law ◽  
English Court ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Way

Recent English decisions have paved the way for English courts to apply foreign intellectual property law to the infringement of foreign intellectual property (‘IP’) rights in cases in which the court is seised of jurisdiction pursuant to the 1968 Brussels and 1989 Lugano Conventions. If one defendant can be sued pursuant to the Conventions' rules, the potential exists to consolidate in one English action claims against different defendants for the infringement of intellectual property rights from different jurisdictions. This ability to consolidate infringement actions is subject to Article 16(4) of the Conventions, the requirements of Article 6(1) and RSC Order 11, rule 1(1)(c), and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. However, it appears that in cases in which the court is seised of jurisdiction pursuant to the non-Convention rules, English courts will not be entitled to apply foreign intellectual property laws.

scholarly journals Cross-country differences in innovative entrepreneurial activity

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (7) ◽  
pp. 1301-1329
Author(s):  
Ali Raza ◽  
Moreno Muffatto ◽  
Saadat Saeed
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Performance Orientation ◽  
Entrepreneurial Cognition ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Business Freedom

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between entrepreneurial cognition and innovative entrepreneurial activity (IEA) across countries using an institutional perspective. Design/methodology/approach The paper tests theoretical model using data collected by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness study and the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF). A multi-level analysis is performed based on set of 1,004,620 observations from 49 countries spanning 13 years (2001–2013). Findings The results suggest that in terms of formal regulations; the relationship between entrepreneurial cognitions and IEA becomes stronger when there is an increase in intellectual property right and business freedom regulations in a country. On the other hand, in terms of informal institutions the relationship between entrepreneurial cognitions and IEA becomes stronger when the level of institutional collectivism and uncertainty decreases and performance orientation increases. Originality/value The study indicates that entrepreneurship by innovation increases when the individuals possess high level of entrepreneurial cognition under suitable institutional conditions (e.g. intellectual property right, business freedom, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and performance orientation).

scholarly journals MAPPING AND PROTECTING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE FIELD OF THE TRADITIONAL BATIK DESIGN OF TIRTOMOYO AS THE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE LOCAL GENIUS IN THE CREATIVE INDRUSTRIAL ERA

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarwono
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Cultural Expression ◽  
The One ◽  
Local Government Policy

<p align="center"><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p><p><em>            In order to provide the protection to the “traditional batik art knowledge” in Tirtomoyo, Wonogiri, the local government policy rests on the </em><em>potensial of art, commerce, services, education, tourism and sports</em><em>.Here, it can be drawn the real purpose, that is to develop, to conserve, and to protect the traditional knowledge as the heritage and cultural expression, especially the traditional knowledge. I</em><em>n th</em><em>is</em><em> case</em><em>, the Intellectual Property Right protection and its all varieties should be applied on the traditional intellectual art. However, it has not yet manifested the regional regulation on the Intellectual Property Right, especially the protection to the traditional knowledge.         There has not been confirmation about what institutions will be responsible or what kind of agencies will be involved in providing the protection to the traditional knowledge, like the batik art, dance art, and others, so that they don’t seem loose accountability in handling it. The policy on the Intellectual Property Right, especially the one related to the traditional knowledge, is still partial or supplement. The Industry and Trade Department of Wonogiri regency, which handles the micro and medium industry field and is not related directly to the batik handicraft industry, has planned to make a program of batik handicraft industry as the regional superior. </em></p><strong><em>Key words: Intellectual Property Right, Traditional knowledge, Batik Art.</em></strong>

scholarly journals The impact of trust on intellectual property right protection: a cross-national study

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thuy Thi Nguyen ◽  
Tien Hanh Duong ◽  
My Tran Thanh Dinh ◽  
Tram Ho Ha Pham ◽  
Thu Mai Anh Truong
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Social Trust ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
National Study ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cross National Study ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ipr Protection

PurposeThis study aims to empirically investigate how difference in social trust explains the heterogeneity of intellectual property right (IPR) protection (proxied by software piracy rate) across countries. Specifically, the authors also examine whether this effect is complementary or substitute to legal and economic factors.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use both ordinary least square and two-stage least square regressions to investigate this effect.FindingsThe authors find that there is also a complementary effect between trust and rule of law in reducing the violation of IPRs.Originality/valueAlthough the literature by now has documented the solid relationship between trust and the quality of formal institutions, only few studies have explored more specific measures of institutional consequences. Thus, this study is the first study investigating the role of trust, a valuable social capital dimension, on IPR protection.

scholarly journals GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN INDIA & THE CASE OF FAMOUS INDIAN WEAVE: BANARASI BROCADE

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 137-146
Author(s):  
Shruti Gulati
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Place Of Origin ◽  
Selling Point

A milestone was reached when WTO through TRIPS had granted goods to retain its essence of the land by allowing attaching a geographical indication to goods having specialty from the place of origin. Where a product holds characteristics that clearly indicate its reference to a place in terms of quality, essentially attributed things such as reputation, it is said to have a geographical indication. Where most things become synonymous with the land, that they sometimes lose their own identity leading to an interchangeable use of the geographical name with the good like the ‘banarasibrocade’or ‘phulkari’. The reason for getting it under the Intellectual Property Right radar is that it becomes the selling point as well as that characteristic which solely differentiates the good out of the crowd, sometimes to an extent of premium pricing as well. It’s like a safeguard to both the consumers for an assurance of quality and the producers for making it worthy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document