Pierre Regibeau, Dec 20, 2013
Antitrust concerns about “pay-for-delay” patent settlements are based on two theories of harms, one that stresses the need for courts to review the validity of patents and one that emphasizes the “probabilistic” nature of patent rights. The main weakness of the first theory of harm is that it fails to explain why some forms of patent settlements would be less desirable than others. The “probabilistic” theory of harm raises fundamental questions about the legal obligations of a patent-holder, the type of uncertainty that should be reflected in the probabilistic nature of the patents and whether the theory can be applied to anything but the simplest PFD settlements. This article also discusses the likely effect of a PFD ban on innovation and reviews both the European approach to recent and ongoing PFD cases and the recent Actavis decision of the US Supreme Court.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
UK Probes Lindab’s Acquisition of HAS-Vent Amid Fears of Market Monopoly
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Shein Faces EU Regulations Over User Data
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Google Fights Back Against US Antitrust Lawsuit
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
US Homeland Security Establishes Blue-Ribbon Board with Tech CEOs to Advise on AI
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Accuses Amazon Executives of Using Disappearing Messaging Apps to Conceal Evidence
Apr 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI