Posted by Social Science Research Network
U.S. Court Upholds Antitrust Action Against Patent Troll Michael A. Carrier (Rutgers University)
Abstract: On March 2, 2015, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland offered a wide-ranging analysis of antitrust claims against the conduct of famous “patent troll” Intellectual Ventures (IV). IV sued Capital One for patent infringement, Capital One sought to amend its Answer and Counterclaims to add antitrust counterclaims, and, in this opinion, Judge Grimm allowed this amendment. The opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One is important for three primary reasons.
The first involves market definition. The court defined the relevant market narrowly to cover only IV’s patent portfolio. In moving “upstream” to patents, such a maneuver is not constrained by the limits of customer demand and whether products can be substituted in a “downstream” product market.
The second development centers on predatory monopolization conduct. The court plowed new ground in finding monopolization based on the acquisition of a patent portfolio. It distinguished between a “bona fide” patent acquisition and IV’s process of working backwards from product to patent, locating companies with sunk product investments and then suing them for patent infringement.
Third, the court resuscitated the oft-criticized Brown Shoe case and its incipiency standard. The court offered just such a framework in asserting that “it may be that Plaintiffs’ first 10, or 100, or 1,000 patent acquisitions did not violate § 7,” but that “at some point, the acquisitions…created a monopoly and crossed the line to actionable under § 7.”
In short, the decision in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One offers an aggressive roadmap for the antitrust analysis of patent trolls. This court can provide more guidance as the case goes forward, as the framework promises to have a significant effect on patent trolls, particularly in their acquisition and use of patent portfolios.
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand