A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Antitrust

A Conspiracy of One

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Jan. 30, 2025
Antitrust

Patent and antitrust law are awkward bedfellows. Antitrust law is all about encouraging competition by limiting the the use of market power, while patent law aims to encourage innovation by eliminating competition. The counterclaim writes itself.

not literally, at least for now
not literally, at least for now Glenn Carstens Peters, Unsplash

Judge Burke had a decision the other day dealing with an aspect of antitrust law that appears to be a first in Delaware.

The plaintiffs in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Curio Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1375-MN, were the patentee and exclusive licensee. They had apparently been on a bit of a litigation spree of late, and the defendant was the latest in a series of suits. The defendant counterclaimed under section 2 …

View

(Anti-)Trust Falls

Nathan R. Hoeschen, May 28, 2024
Antitrust Noerr-Pennington

The intersection of patent and anti-trust law is tricky. Like, Boston intersection tricky.

"It used to be a cow-path that avoided a snakepit, but now we let cars use it!" Leon Bredella, Unsplash

Judge Williams had an interesting opinion on the issue last week in Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms., LLC, C.A. No. 22-941 (D. Del. May 24, 2024), ruling on a motion to dismiss various antitrust counterclaims. In this ANDA case, Jazz sued Avadel for infringing one of its Orange Book patents. Avadel, however, successfully moved the Court to de-list that patent from the Orange Book grounds that it did not claim a method of use (it was instead directed to a risk mitigation …

View

Door Slams on Sham Litigation Exception, Resulting in No Antitrust Liability for Prior IP Lawsuit

Emily DiBenedetto, Feb. 8, 2024
Trademark Litigation Antitrust

Monopoly
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Why did physicists refuse to write about the Antitrust Paradox? Because every time they tried to define the relevant market share, the observer effect kicked in, and the monopoly disappeared. (I hope readers who have dual Bork/quark interests enjoyed that.)

Today’s highlighted opinion proceeds from trademark law, crosses into antitrust law, and has implications for patent law. In it, Judge Connolly rejects a plaintiff's attempt to argue that the defendants' prior filing of trademark litigation against competitor gave rise to anti-trust and unfair competition claims.

Noerr-Pennington Precludes Some Tort and Anti-Trust Claims Based on Litigation—Unless It Was Sham Litigation

Judge Connolly explained that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides immunity from certain types of claims that a plaintiff …

View

D. Del. Permits FRAND Antitrust Claim to Proceed

Andrew E. Russell, March 26, 2021
MTD FRAND

A different kind of Sherman
A different kind of Sherman Sherman Tank at Clervaux Castle, Luxembourg, R Boed, CC BY 2.0

This week, Chief Judge Stark ruled on a motion to dismiss a FRAND-related antitrust claim brought by Lenovo against InterDigital relating to 3G/4G phone standards.

According to the Court, InterDigital contracted with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to license its patents at FRAND rates, and its patents were incorporated into the 3G/4G standards. The ETSI requires patentees to license their patents at FRAND rates to avoid anti-trust concerns.

Lenovo's antitrust claims allege that InterDigital, by demanding higher-than-FRAND rates, has obtained an unlawful monopoly power over the 3G/4G standards. Lenovo also alleges that InterDigital defrauded ETSI during the standards development process:

Lenovo allege[s] …
View

Archive