Setting the Stage: The Dubious Origins of Patent Exhaustion and First Sale

• • O’Connor, Seán M., The Damaging Myth of Patent Exhaustion (December 9, 2020). Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Forthcoming, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3746006

Panel 1: What’s Next for Copyright and Licensing After Warhol and Internet Archive?

• • Aistars, Sandra, Copyright’s Lost Art of Substantial Similarity (September 7, 2023). George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 23-14, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, Vol. 26 (Forthcoming 2023), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4565009  
  • Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, AMICUS BRIEF, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., FILED. Service date 03/04/2013 by CM/ECF. [869737] [12-4547]–[Edited 03/14/2013 by DH]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-4547/92 
  • Google v. Oracle, AMICUS BRIEF, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
  • Warhol v. Goldsmith  
    • Decision of the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf  
    • Amicus brief from Authors Guild: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-869/228277/20220617122852031_21-869tsacTheAuthorsGuildInc.pdf  
    • Authors Alliance amicus brief in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith:   https://www.authorsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AuthorsAlliance_WarholFoundationv.Goldsmith_Amicus.pdf  
    • Amicus brief from Association of American Publishers: https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AAP-As-Filed-Amicus-Brief.pdf  
    • Amicus brief from the Motion Picture Association: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-869/228286/20220617124339929_21-869acMPA.pdf  
  • Hachette v. Internet Archive 
    • Decision of the Southern District of New York: https://casetext.com/case/hachette-book-grp-v-internet-archive-5
    • Sandra Aistars and Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Scholars of Copyright Law in Support of Plaintiffs and in Opposition to Internet Archive (August 15, 2022): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/163/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/  
    • Amicus brief from Authors Guild: https://authorsguild.org/app/uploads/2022/08/2022.08.12-Exhibit-A-Proposed-Amici-Curaie-Brief.pdf  
    • Authors Alliance amicus brief in Hachette v. Internet Archive: https://www.authorsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Authors-Alliance-Amicus-Brief_HBG-v.-IA_Filed.pdf
  • Tang, Xiyin, Art After Warhol (August 16, 2023). UCLA Law Review, Forthcoming, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4542784  

Panel 2A: SEP Licensing & Proposed Legislation: Is There a Problem & Are These the Fixes? (with the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School)

• • Contreras, Jorge L., A Statutory Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction for U.S. Patent Cases? (April 14, 2022). University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 495, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4084116
  • Contreras, Jorge L., Anti-Suit Injunctions and Jurisdictional Competition In Global FRAND Litigation: The Case For Judicial Restraint (August 5, 2021). University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 464, 11(2) NYU J. Intell. Prop.& Entertainment L. 171 (2021), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3899923
  • Contreras, Jorge L., Comments Submitted to the European Commission on Its Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Standard Essential Patents (August 7, 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4534516
  • Jorge L. Contreras, Global Rate Setting: A Solution for Standards-Essential Patents?, 94 Wash. L. Rev. 701 (2019), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol94/iss2/5
  • Contreras, Jorge L., National FRAND Rate-Setting Legislation: A Cure For International Jurisdictional Competition In Standards-Essential Patent Litigation? (July 1, 2022). CPI Antitrust Chron., Jul. 2022, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4173485
  • Raskovich, Alexander and Ginsburg, Douglas H. and Kobayashi, Bruce H. and Lipsky, Abbott B. and Yun, John M., IP Rights Delayed are IP Rights Denied: The Global Antitrust Institute’s Comment on the European Commission’s 2023 Proposal to Regulate Standard-Essential Patents (August 15, 2023). George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 23-12, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4541680
  • Baron, Justus, The Commission’s Draft SEP Regulation – Focus on Proposed Mechanisms for the Determination of ‘Reasonable Aggregate Royalties’ (August 10, 2023).  https://ssrn.com/abstract=4537591

Panel 2B: Copyrights and Trademarks in the Metaverse

• • Jon M. Garon, Legal Implications of a Ubiquitous Metaverse and a Web3 Future, 106 Marq. L. Rev. 163 (2022), https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol106/iss1/5
  • Murray, Michael D., Trademarks, NFTs, and the Law of the Metaverse (July 11, 2022). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4160233
  • Bushell, Chris, The Impact of Metaverse on Branding and Marketing – A Study of How Individuals and Celebrities Use Metaverse as a Brand Extension, and the Implications for Marketing (June 23, 2022). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144688

Panel 3A: Expansion of the TRIPS Waiver, Parallel Importation, Anti-Diversion Provision, and the Potential Effect of the Waiver on Markets for COVID-Related Pharmaceuticals

• • POLICY REPORT The Importance of an Effective and Reliable Patent System to Investment in Critical Technologies THE ALLIANCE OF U.S. STARTUPS AND INVENTORS FOR JOBS Written by Mark F. Schultz July 2020
  • Mark Schultz and Philip Stevens, Five Reasons the TRIPS Waiver Should Not Be Expanded to COVID Therapeutics, The Geneva Network (October 2022)
  • Eric M. Solovy, The TRIPS Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccines, and Its Potential Expansion: Assessing the Impact on Global IP Protection and Public Health (Ctr. for Intell. Prop. x Innov. Pol. Dec. 2022)
  • Eric M. Solovy and Deepak Raju, Recent Threats to Global Trade Secret Protection: Why Compulsory Licensing Is Not (and Should Not Be) a Viable Legal Option (Ctr. for Intell. Prot. x Innov. Pol. Oct. 2021)

Panel 3B: SEP Licensing & FRAND Issues: Where Are the Hotspots?

• • Borghetti, Jean-Sébastien and Nikolic, Igor and Petit, Nicolas, FRAND Licensing Levels under EU Law (February 5, 2020). European Competition Journal (2021), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3532469 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3532469
  • Heiden, Bowman and Baron, Justus, The Economic Impact of Patent Holdout (July 08, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4505268
  • Petit, Nicolas and Leonard, Amandine, Frand Royalties: Rules v Standards? (September 22, 2022). Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Forthcoming, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4226927
  • Raskovich, Alexander, Self-Regulation in Standard-Setting Organizations: Frand Royalties in the Process of Discovering Standards (September 15, 2022). George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 22-37, Law & Economics Center at George Mason University Scalia Law School Research Paper Series No. 22-037, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4220015

Panel 4: Amgen/Functional Claiming

• • Joshua D. Sarnoff, Does Patent Enablement Require That the Specification Teach Those Skilled in the Art to “Make and Use” the Claimed Invention or Must It Enable Those Skilled in the Art “to Reach the Full Scope of Claimed Embodiments”?, The Federal Circuit (March 27, 2023): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8CTDhrf49U&t=3s
  • Sarnoff, Joshua D. and Sandeen, Sharon K. and Santos Rutschman, Ana, Brief of Law Professors Joshua D. Sarnoff, Sharon K. Sandeen, and Ana Santos Rutschman as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Amgen, Inc. V. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (February 10, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4353815
  • Lemley, Mark A., Brief of Intellectual Property Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (December 22, 2021)
  • Prelogar, Elizabeth B. et al, Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi
  • Horowitz, Steven J. et al, Brief of Diversified Researchers and Innovators in Support of Petitioners, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (January 3, 2023)
  • Cochran, Karen et al, Brief of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (January 3, 2023)
  • Massey, Jonathan S. et al, Brief of AbbVie Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (January 3, 2023)
  • Opinion in Orexo v. Sun Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J., June 30, 2023)
  • Decision in Baxalta v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023)

Panel 5A: Generative AI and Human Authorship

• • Aistars, Sandra, Visualizing Copyright Law: Lessons from Conceptual Artists (May 18, 2023). Akron Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 101–133 (2023), George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 23-04, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4452367
  • Copyright Alliance AI Position Paper
  • Copyright Alliance Statement for the Record to Senate Judiciary Committee IP Subcommittee 
  • Lindberg, Van, Building and Using Generative Models Under US Copyright Law (May 30, 2023). 18 Rutgers Bus. L.R. No. 2 (2023)., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4464001 
  • Lindberg, Van, Building and Using Generative Models Under US Copyright Law (May 30, 2023). 18 Rutgers Bus. L.R. No. 2 (2023)., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4464001 
  • Stech, Molly, Co-Authorship Between Photographers and Portrait Subjects (Jan 1, 2022). Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, Vol. 25, 2022, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4049946  
  • USCO Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Listening Sessions: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/  
  • Sandra Aistars and Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Scholars of Copyright Law in Support of Plaintiffs and in Opposition to Internet Archive (August 15, 2022): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211300/163/hachette-book-group-inc-v-internet-archive/  
  • Tehranian, John, Sex, Drones & Videotape: Rethinking Copyright’s Authorship-Fixation Conflation in the Age of Performance (May 16, 2017). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 68, August 2017, Southwestern Law School Research Paper No. 2017-8, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2969170  
  • Tehranian, John, The Subject Strikes Back: Intellectual Property, Visual Pleasure & Resistance in the Arts (January 16, 2022). American University Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, 2022, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4009950  
  • Tehranian, John, Toward a New Fair Use Standard: Attributive Use and the Closing of Copyright’s Crediting Gap (June 19, 2022). Southern California Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 1, 2022, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4012361  

Panel 5B: Patent Thickets

• • Presentation slides for the panel from the Hon. Professor F. Scott Kieff’
  • Jonathan M. Barnett, Are There Really Patent Thickets? REGULATION (Winter 2016-2017), available at https://gould.usc.edu/assets/docs/directory/1000201.pdf.
  • Jonathan M. Barnett, From Patent Thickets to Patent Networks: The Legal Infrastructure of the Digital Economy, JURIMETRICS J. Vol. 55 (2014). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2438364
  • Carrier, Michael A. and Tu, Shine (Sean), Why Pharmaceutical Patent Thickets Are Unique (August 2023) TEX. fNTELL. PROP., available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4571486
  • Noriyuki Doi and Xingyuan Zhang, Patent Thickets and Licensing: Empirical Findings.from Japanese Listed Companies, Faculty of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, available at https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/3_2_Doi_Zhang_Patent_thicket.pdf
  • Rachel Goode and Bernard Chao, Biological patent thickets and delayed access to biosimilars, an American problem, J.L.& BIOSCIENCES (Sept. 2022), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9439849/.
  • Alberto Galasso and Mark Schankerman, Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation, 41 Rand J. Econ 472 (2010), available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/25746038 (also see https://econpapers.repec.org/article/blarandje/v_3a41_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a472-503.htm)
  • Grabowski et al., Continuing Trends in U.S. Brand Name and Generic Drug Competition, 24 J. MEDICAL ECONOMICS 908 (2021), available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34253119/
  • David Kleban, Antitrust Plaintiffs Complain of Patent ‘·Thickets,” (Aug. 2020), available at https://www.pbwt.com/antitrust-update-blog/antitrust-plaintiffs-complain-of-patent-thickets.
  • Lietzan and K. Acri, Distorted Drug Patents, 95 WASH. L. REV. 1317, 1326-29 (2020), available at https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1984&context=facpubs
  • Lietzan and K. Acri, Solutions Still Searching for a Problem: A Call for Relevant Data to Support “Evergreening” Allegations. Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Entertainmt. L. J. 33, 2022, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4230310
  • Federal Trade Commissioner Edith Ramirez, Keynote Address at the 29th Annual Antitrust. Consumer Protection and Unfair Business Practices Seminar and Annual Meeting, Washington State Bar Association, 3-4 (Nov. 8, 2012).
  • Federal Trade Commission Staff Report, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance OJ Competition and Patent Law And Policy, (2003), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/promote-innovation-proper-balance-competition-and-patent-law-and-policy/innovationrpt.pdf.
  • Adam Mossoff, The Rise and Fall of the First American Patent Thicket: The Sewing Machine Wars of the 1850s, 53 ARIZ. L.REV. 165 (2011), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1354849.
  • Lisa Orucevic, A Machete for the Patent Thicket, 75 VAND. L. R. 277 (2022), available at https://vanderbiltlawreview.org/lawreview/2022/01/a-machete-for-the-patent-thicket/.
  • Carl Shapiro, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice And Remedies With Competition, Federal Trade Commission (2011), available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-and-remedies-competition-report-federal-trade/110307patentreport.pdf
  • Carl Shapiro, Navigating The Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, I Innovation Pol. & Econ. 120 (2000), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=273550.
  • Carl Shapiro and Mark A. Lemley, The Role Of Antitrust In Preventing Patent Hold-Up, 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2019, 2038 (2020), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3666211.
  • Edward F. Sherry and David J. Teece, Patent Thickets: An Economic Appraisal, Tusher Center For The Management of Intellectual Capital, Working Paper Series 1, available at https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patent-Thickets232015.pdf.
  • Stefan Wagner, Are ‘Patent Thickets’ Smothering Innovation, YALE INSIGHTS, available at https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/are-patent-thickets-smothering-innovation.
  • RELEVANT CASE LAW:
    • In Re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig., No.19-CV-1873, 2020 US Dist. Lexis 99782, at 57 (N.D. Ill. 8 June 2020) (dismissing claim that AbbVie’s application for and obtaining 132 patents on the formula and method for manufacturing the Humira antibody twelve years after the drug was marketed to prevent market entry by biosimilar was subject to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine precluding a finding of monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.), aff’d Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. AbbVie.lnc., et al, 42 F.4th 709 (2022).
    • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Mayer, J. concurring) (calling for the elimination of “generically-implemented software patents” to “clear the patent thicket”).
    • Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 874 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“[T]here is nothing improper, illegal, or inequitable in filing a patent application for the purpose of obtaining a right to exclude a known competitors product the applicant’s attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a patent application.”).
    • Intel Corp. v. Fortress Investment Grp. LLC. No. l 9-cv-07651 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (dismissing complaint but allowing amendment observing that under Hynix Semiconductor lnc. v. Rambus, Inc. 527 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal.2007), “liability can be based on nonpetitioning activity only (such as aggregation of patents) or else Noerr- Pennington would be implicated-but injury can be related to petitioning activity ( i.e., patent infringement).”
    • Proctor & Gamble v. Paragon Trade Brands, 61 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Del. 1996) (dismissing case, where “to the extent that P&G does wield market power, its accrual of a patent “thicket” still would not constitute a Section 2 [ of the Sherman Act] violation because it would be immune under the Noerr­ Pennington doctrine.”)

Panel 6A: SEP Licensing & the European Courts: What Are They Doing Right?

• • Nikolic, Igor, The Approach of English Courts in SEP Disputes: No Standalone Actions for Determination of Global FRAND Rates (July 24, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4519405
  • Contreras, Jorge L., A New Perspective on FRAND Royalties: Unwired Planet v. Huawei (April 13, 2017). University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 206, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949449
  • Baron, Justus and Contreras, Jorge L. and Larouche, Pierre, Balance and Standardization: Implications for Competition and Antitrust Analysis (June 21, 2022). 84 Antitrust L.J. 425 (2022), University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 502, University of Montreal Faculty of Law Research Paper, SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4142754
  • Huawei v. ZTE: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/cjeu-decisions/huawei-v-zte
  • Interdigital v. Lenovo: https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/03/19/uk-court-hands-key-frand-ruling-interdigital-v-lenovo
  • IP Bridge v. TCT: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/german-court-decisions/olg-karlsruhe/ip-bridge-v-tct
  • Nokia v. Daimler: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/german-court-decisions/olg-karlsruhe/nokia-v-daimler
  • Nokia v. OPPO: https://www.iam-media.com/article/nokia-v-oppo-and-cci-jurisdiction-decisions-set-new-benchmarks-sep-jurisprudence
  • Optis v. Apple: https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-loses-london-appeal-4g-patent-dispute-with-optis-2023-07-04
  • Sisvel v. Haier: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/german-court-decisions/federal-court-of-justice-bgh/sisvel-v-haier-federal-court-justice-bundesgerichtshof
  • Unwired Planet v. Huawei: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0214.html

Panel 6B: The Limits of First Sale in Trademark Law: Upcycling & Material Alteration

• • Lemley, Mark A. and Mazzurco, Sari, The Exclusive Right to Customize? (January 28, 2022). 103 B.U. L. Rev. (Forthcoming), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4020549

Panel 7: Semiconductor Supply Chain (with the National Security Institute (NSI) at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School)

• • Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Hogan, Megan, CHIPS Act will spur US production but not foreclose China (October 16, 2022). Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief No. 22-13, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4261113
  • Miller, Eric, Why Washington Must Invest in Domestic Compound Semiconductor Production (September 16, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4573945 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4573945
  • Zenick, Joseph and Belton, Keith, U.S. Supply Chain Resilience to a China Shock: The Case of Chemical Products (September 8, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4566355