Posted by Social Science Research Network
Why Patent Hold-Up Does Not Violate Antitrust Law
By Gregory J. Werden & Luke M. Froeb
Owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) are cast as villains for engaging in “patent hold-up,” i.e., taking advantage of the fact that they negotiate royalties with implementer-licensees that already have made sunk investments in the standard. In contrast to “patent ambush,” patent hold-up involves no standard-setting misconduct or harm to any competitive process, and thus cannot violate antitrust law. Commentators taking a contrary positions confuse the ends of antitrust law with its means. Antitrust law promotes consumer welfare only by protecting competition. Casting aside this core principle would expose business decisions, including ordinary price setting, to judicial oversight. Commitments made by SEP owners in the standard-setting process, however, should be enforced, and they are enforced. Without an antitrust cause of action, implementers invoke the powers of the courts to resolve royalty disputes over SEPs.
Featured News
Japan’s Nippon Steel Eyes Year-End Close on $15B US Steel Deal Amid Political Uncertainty
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
Canada Orders Dissolution of TikTok’s Business Amid National Security Concerns
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
India Raids Amazon, Flipkart Seller Offices in Foreign Investment Probe
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Seeks Public Feedback on Updated Merger Guidelines
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Adopts Stricter Reporting Rules for Mergers, Delays Expected in 2025
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI