Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 25 - Antitrust and Competition Issues

  • from Part IV - Advanced Licensing Topics
  • Jorge L. Contreras, University of Utah
  • Book:
    Intellectual Property Licensing and Transactions
    Published online:
    21 June 2022
    Print publication:
    30 June 2022, pp 824-884
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    Chaptr 25 offers a survey of the many ways in which antitrust and competition law affect IP licensing transactions. It begins with a brief overview of US antitrust law and enforcement and distinguishes between per se liability and liability under the rule of reason. It then considers how antitrust authorities have viewed IP transations, beginning with the Nine No-Nos (1970) and more recent agency pronouncements. The chapter then describes specific antitrust doctrines that impact IP transactions: price fixing, market allocation (US v. Topco), resale price maintenance (Leegin v PSKS), tying (Siegel v. Chicken Delight), monopolization (Illinois Tool Works v. Indep. Ink), refusals to deal (The Movie 1 & 2), standard setting (Allied Tube v. Indian Head), reverse payment settlements (FTC v. Actavis).