PANEL 1: HOW WELL DOES THE ANTITRUST APPROACH FIT THE BIOPHARMACEUTICAL SPACE?

• • Professor Lee Branstetter – presentation slides
  • Lee Branstetter, Chirantan Chatterjee, Matthew J. Higgins, Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation, Research Policy, Volume 51, Issue 10, 2022
  • Kevin D. McDonald – presentation slides

PANEL 2: THE GEOPOLITICS OF SEP ANTITRUST POLICY

• • Igor Nikolic, Global Standard Essential Patent Litigation: Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions (working paper)
  • Igor Nikolic, Injunctions Facilitate Patent Licensing Deals: Evidence from the Automotive Sector, Competition Policy International (June 20, 2022)
  • Unwired Planet International Ltd and another (Respondents) v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another (Appellants)
  • Sisvel v. Haier (2020) – Federal Court of Justice, Decision of 5 May 2020 (translated)

PANEL 3: IP & ANTITRUST

• • Alden F. Abbott, US Government Antitrust Intervention in Standard-Setting Activities and the Competitive Process, 18 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 225 (2020)
  • Alden Abbott, Patent Eligibility, Competition, Innovation, Congress, and the Supreme Court, Truth on the Market (6 July 2022)
  • Alden Abbott and Andrew Mercado, US should look to Europe before changing online marketing rules, The Hill (1 Sept. 2022)
  • Alden Abbott, Khan & Slaughter Make ITC Filing Supporting Policies that Would Undermine SEPs and US Innovation, Truth on the Market (23 May 2022)
  • Comments of Scholars of Law, Economics, and Business: Draft USPTO, NIST, & DOJ Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/FRAND Commitments (Feb. 4, 2022)
  • A. Abbott, et al., Putting Innovation First: The ‘New Madison Approach’ to Patent Licensing and Antitrust, released by the Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society (October 19, 2021)
  • Jay Ezrielev and Genaro Marquez, Interoperability: The Wrong Prescription for Platform Competition, Competition Policy International (June 15, 2021)
  • Jay Ezrielev and Joseph Simons, Updating the Merger Guidelines: A Dynamic Reboot, Competition Policy International (April 12, 2022)
  • Carmelo Cennamo and Juan Santalo, Value in Digital Platforms: The Choice of Tradeoffs in the Digital Markets Act, Competition Policy International (July 27, 2022)
  • Erik Hovenkamp, Proposed Antitrust Reforms in Big Tech: What Do They Imply for Competition and Innovation?, Competition Policy International (July 13, 2022)
  • Pierre Larouche & Alexandre de Streel, Will the Digital Markets Act Kill Innovation in Europe?, Competition Policy International (May 19, 2021)
  • Luis M.B. Cabral, et al., The EU Digital Markets Act: A Report from a Panel of Economic Experts, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-29788-8, d oi:10.2760/139337, JRC122910., Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper No. 3783436, NYU Stern School of Business Forthcoming
  • Jacques Crémer, et al., Fairness and Contestability in the Digital Markets Act (July 6, 2021)
  • Manuel Wörsdörfer, The Digital Markets Act and E.U. Competition Policy: A Critical Ordoliberal Evaluation (August 10, 2022). Forthcoming, Philosophy of Management
  • Cristina Caffarra and Fiona Scott Morton, How Will the Digital Markets Act Regulate Big Tech?, ProMarket (January 11, 2021)
  • Florence G’Sell, The Digital Markets Act Represents a Change in Europe’s Approach to Digital Gatekeepers, ProMarket (January 25, 2021)
  • Kay Jebelli, The EU Digital Markets Act: Five Questions of Principle, DisCo (February 9, 2021)
  • Christopher S. Yoo, When big was not bad: Lessons from Congress’s decisions not to enact antitrust reform, The Hill (Sept. 27 2022)

PANEL 4: HOW WEAK PATENT RIGHTS DISTORT INNOVATION MARKETS

• • Jonathan Barnett, Intellectual Property and Transactional Choice: Rethinking the IP/Antitrust Dichotomy (July 18, 2022). CPI Antitrust Chronicle, July 2022, USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS22-19, USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 22-19
  • Dr. Jorge Padilla – presentation slides
  • Professor Mark Schultz – presentation slides
  • Mark F. Schultz, The Important of an Effective and Reliable Patent System to Investment in Critical Technologies, The Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (July 2020)
  • Professor David Taylor – presentation slides
  • David O. Taylor, Patent Eligibility and Investment (February 24, 2019). 41 Cardozo Law Review 2019 (2020), SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 414

PANEL 5: COPYRIGHT UNDER PRESSURE – WHAT PHASE ARE WE IN?

• • Professor Clay Asay – presentation slides
  • Clark D. Asay, An Empirical Study of Copyright’s Substantial Similarity Test (January 19, 2022). 13 UC Irvine Law Review (forthcoming 2022)
  • Clark D. Asay and Arielle Sloan and Dean Sobczak, Is Transformative Use Eating the World? (February 11, 2019). 61 Boston College Law Review 905 (2020), BYU Law Research Paper No. 19-06
  • Professor Orit Fischman-Afori – presentation slides

PANEL 6: TRADE SECRETS: WAXING WHILE OTHERS WANE?

• • Dr. Nicola Searle (on behalf of the Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom), Research and analysis: The economic and innovation impacts of trade secrets (19 April 2021)
  • Gavin Reid and Nicola Searle and Saurabh Vishnubhakat, What’s It Worth to Keep a Secret? (May 29, 2015). Duke Law & Technology Review, Vol. 13, 2015, Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-59
  • Douglas C. Lippoldt and Mark F. Schultz, Uncovering Trade Secrets – An Empirical Assessment of Economic Implications of Protection for Undisclosed Data (August 11, 2014). Lippoldt, D. and M. Schultz (2014-08-11), “Uncovering Trade Secrets – An Empirical Assessment of Economic Implications of Protection for Undisclosed Data”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 167, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxzl5w3j3s6-en

PANEL 7: CHINA-U.S. COMPETITION IN THE 21st CENTURY:  INNOVATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND ITS IMPACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY

• • Dan Prud’homme, Chinese Patent Quantity and Patent Quality, and the Role of the State (2017). Section 4.2 in: Prud’homme, D. & Zhang, T., 2017. Evaluation of China’s Intellectual Property Regime for Innovation. Report for the World Bank, 39-66
  • Dan Prud’homme and Zhang Taolue, Evaluation of China’s Intellectual Property Regime for Innovation: Summary Report (2017). Summary Report for the World Bank, December 2017
  • Dan Prud’homme, 3 Myths About China’s IP Regime (2019). Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019