Margherita Colangelo ‘Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Sector Under EU and US Competition Laws: A Comparative Analysis’ (2017) World Competition 40(3) 47

As its name indicates, this paper – which can be found here – compares the European and American approaches to pay-for-delay agreements – i.e. those agreements between an originator and a generics manufacturer where the former pays the latter to settle a patent injunction and agrees conditions to delay generic entry into the market. This payment goes against the standard expectation that a defendant in a patent suit would pay an IP-holding plaintiff to settle, but it is nonetheless economically rational for both parties: ‘the profit that the generic entering the market anticipates selling at a significant discount to the price of the brand-name product will be much less than the profit the brand-name drug company loses from the same sales applying the monopolistic price’. Settling the dispute eliminates the potential for competition and allows the parties to share profits that would otherwise be eroded by lower prices. The argument is that, while the case-mix on each side of the…

Sven Gallasch ‘Activating Actavis in Europe – the proposal of a ‘structured effects-based’ analysis for pay for delay agreements’ (2016) Legal Studies 36(4) 683

This article – which can be found here – criticises the adoption of a ‘by-object’ approach in the EU for pay-for-delay agreements, and argues that Europe should instead adopt a test along the lines of the rule of reason approach delineated by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis. This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 compares the EU and US regulatory frameworks. While broadly consistent with the papers above, this paper emphasises two points which merit attention. First, it is pointed out that the existence of a period of exclusivity for the first generic entry can, when coupled with the possibility of the generic supplier settling a patent validity claim with the branded drug originator, skew the incentives of the parties in favour of settlement to the disadvantage of final consumers. Instead of solving the patent dispute in court, the parties settle their dispute. The generic company is nonetheless granted the 180 days of generic exclusivity. The parties…

Eleanor Fox “China, Export Cartels and Vitamin C: America Second?”

This paper, which can be found here, seems to argue that framing the issue in this case – which was described in the post below – as a matter of international comity misunderstands the matters at stake. The question is first, one of jurisdiction under the effects’ doctrine over a cartel implemented abroad, and, following this, about whether the US rules on the foreign sovereign compulsion defence apply. The correct interpretation of Chinese law may be relevant, but only in certain circumstances and only in the course of the normal application of US rules. She begins by pointing out that this is a case of a naked cartel, and that China’s sole role in it is to intervene before US courts in order to free its manufacturers from the consequences of violating the clear and well-known rule of US law forbidding price fixing. As such, the matter is not merely whether China alone can say what Chinese law is, which is…

Danny Crane “The Chinese Vitamins Case: Who Decides Chinese Law?’

This paper – which can be read here – begins by summarising the background to the case. In short, since the 1970s, when China began its transition to a market economy, the Chinese government has maintained export controls in the Vitamin C market in order to maintain a competitive edge over producers from other countries. In part due to the regulatory activities of the Chinese government, Chinese companies control about 60% of the worldwide Vitamin C market. A class of vitamins’ purchasers alleged that the defendant Chinese vitamins companies conspired to fix the price of vitamin C sold to U.S. companies, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Rather than contest the facts, the defendants enlisted the aid of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) which submitted an amicus curiae brief in the district court asserting that defendants’ output reduction agreements were directed by MOFCOM itself and were mandatory. Two main questions arose…

Richard N. Langlois ‘Hunting the Big Five: Twenty-first Century Antitrust in Historical Perspective’

In this paper – available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124356 – the author considers that proponents of the New Brandeis movement in antitrust are animated by a perception that antitrust is not fit for purpose in the digital age. He considers that this movement is arguing for a return to an earlier age of greater interventionism and greater focus on market structures – which is why he calls this movement ‘new structuralism’. Given this focus, proponents of this movement also advocate for a complete overthrow of the Chicago school paradigm, with its anti-interventionist bias. The author’s argument is that the New Brandeis School gets its History wrong, misconceives the nature of the competitive process, and deliberately refuses to confront the political economy of antitrust. He builds his argument as a rebuttal of Lisa Kahn’s article on Amazon (which I circulated and discussed on 3 March 2017). In the interest of clarity, I will ignore that part of the argument when reviewing the paper,…

Herbert Hovenkamp “Whatever Did Happen to the Antitrust Movement?”

This paper argues that recent claims to the effect that antitrust should be used to combat a variety of social ills – such as industrial concentration, the economic or political power of large firms, the maldistribution of wealth, high profits, low wages, or the absence of policies protecting small business – are not new. Such claims have appeared and reappeared periodically in the history of antitrust, and amount to a rhetorical use of antitrust for promoting various societal goals which must be distinguished from the technical enterprise of antitrust. There is between these two dimensions of antitrust an unsurmountable contradiction, as the main goal of the antitrust enterprise (lower prices, larger output, etc.) will often be at odds with the rhetorical uses of antitrust (e.g. protecting small businesses). The paper is structured as follows: A first section looks at the virtues and defects of technical antitrust. “Technical antitrust” refers to: “a set of antitrust rules that begin with a picture…

Peter Menell  ‘Economic Analysis of Network Effects and Intellectual Property’ in Ben Depoorter & Peter S. Menell (eds.), Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law: Vol I. Theory (2018)

This piece – which can be found here – is a rather long , but very comprehensive book chapter that surveys and integrates the economic, business strategy and legal literatures on IP, competition and network effects. It is structured as follows: Part I introduces network effects. I have done this to death in the past, so I’m not going to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that the author looks mainly at demand side network effects, and what its implications are for IP and competition policy: ‘In a static economic model (i.e., one without innovation), consumers benefit from robust competition within product standards. Open access to product standards encourages realization of network externalities. Although bandwagon effects can enhance consumer welfare in a static context, they can also make it more difficult for developers of improved platforms to enter the market. Consumers and suppliers of complementary products can face significant switching costs in migrating from one platform to another.’ Like…

Ioannis Lianos & Pierre Regibeau “Vexatious”/”Sham” Litigation: When can it Arise and How can it be Reduced?’ (2017) Antitrust Bulletin 62(4) 643-689

It is possible that companies may, through regulatory and litigation processes, be able to exclude or marginalize their competitors from the market and therefore charge higher prices, limit output, maintain the status quo price, or diminish innovation. But while these strategies may offer a cheap mechanism for non-price predation, litigation and regulatory process have been set up to protect public goods regardless of the risk that their use may negatively impact competition. Furthermore: ‘assessing on a case-by-case basis the welfare effects of each use of the regulatory and litigation process through some form of sophisticated cost benefit analysis would be too burdensome and would generate too much uncertainty, chilling the legitimate use of such governmental processes and thus frustrating their aims. For this reason, in practice, the use of the regulatory and/or litigation process stays presumptively outside the scope of competition law, through the operation of some form of antitrust immunity, in both the U.S. and in Europe, this being…

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., Dep’t of Justice, Remarks at the USC Gould School of Law’s Center for Transnational Law and Business Conference (Nov. 10, 2017)

This is a speech by US Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim regarding the appropriate approach to standard-setting organisations (SSOs) (and FRAND). As you may or may not know, he is a registered patent lawyer—the first head of the Antitrust Division to be so, so it is unsurprising that he has strong views on the topic. He seems to favour letting IP law run its course unimpeded (or, as he puts it: “Antitrust enforcers should . . . strive to eliminate as much as possible the unnecessary uncertainties for innovators and creators in their ability to exploit their intellectual property rights, as those uncertainties can also reduce the incentives for innovation.”), and only have antitrust intervene exceptionally (‘In case anyone is inclined to misunderstand my comments, let me clearly state that there is an important role for antitrust scrutiny in the standard setting context.’) As he colourfully puts it: ‘Once upon a time, and in their best mode, [SSOs]…

Herbert Hovenkamp ‘Reasonable Patent Exhaustion’ (2018) University of Pennsylvania Law School Faculty Scholarship. 1790

Exhaustion is a typical figure of IP and competition law (and, in the EU, of free movement law as well). The principle is relatively straightforward: after a certain point, restrictions on use or sale of a product cannot be enforced by someone who would otherwise have the right to enforce such restrictions. Exhaustion is often also called the first sale doctrine, as the right to object to the use or sale of a product usually ends after the product is sold for the first time. For example, when someone grants a patent license to another person, the exhaustion rule says that the patentee may not by impose conditions on the patented product’s subsequent use or sale, nor enforce these conditions through a patent infringement suit. This paper – which can be found here –  provides an analysis of a recent US Supreme Court’s decision: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. 1523 (2017). The case concerned a patent…