Solving the Patent Settlement Puzzle

Elhauge, Einer; Krueger, Alex
December 2012
Texas Law Review;Dec2012, Vol. 91 Issue 2, p283
Academic Journal
Courts and commentators are sharply divided about how to assess "reverse payment" patent settlements under antitrust law. The essential problem is that a PTO-issued patent provides only a probabilistic indication that courts would hold that the patent is actually valid and infringed, and parties have incentives to structure reverse payment settlements to exclude entry for longer than this patent probability would merit. Some favor comparing the settlement exclusion period to the expected litigation exclusion period, but this requires difficult case-bycase assessments of the probabilities of patent victory. Others instead favor a formal "scope of the patent" test that allows such settlements for nonsham patents if the settlement does not delay entry beyond the patent term, preclude noninfringing products, or delay nonsettling entrants. However, the formal scope of the patent test excludes entry for longer than merited by the patent strength, and it provides no solution when there is either a significant dispute about infringement or a bottleneck issue delaying other entrants. This Article provides a way out of this dilemma. It proves that when the reverse payment amount exceeds the patent holder's anticipated litigation costs, then under standard conditions the settlement will, according to the patent holder's own probability estimate, exclude entry for longer than both the expected litigation exclusion period and the optimal patent exclusion period, and thus will both harm consumer welfare and undermine optimal innovation incentives. Further, whenever a reverse payment is necessary for settlement, it will also have those same anticompetitive effects according to the entrant's probability estimate. This proof thus provides an easily administrable way to determine when a reverse payment settlement is necessarily anticompetitive, without requiring any probabilistic inquiry into the patent merits. We also show that, contrary to conventional wisdom, patent settlements without any reverse payment usually (but not always) exceed both the expected litigation exclusion period and the optimal patent exclusion period, and we suggest a procedural solution to resolve such cases.


Related Articles

  • WHY PATENTEES LITIGATE. Andrews, Damon C. // Columbia Science & Technology Law Review;2011, Vol. 12, p219 

    Several aspects of patent litigation call into question patent holders' motivation for enforcing their exclusionary rights. Indeed, the expense alone can be enough to deter a firm from engaging in litigation, especially if it is likely that the parties will be unable to reach a settlement...

  • METHOD AND MADNESS IN COPYRIGHT LAW. Burk, Dan L. // Utah Law Review;2007, Vol. 2007 Issue 3, p587 

    The article presents an essay regarding the relevance and concept of the U.S. copyright law. It explores the impossibilities and philosophical presumptions about the natural reality that is integrated in the development of the statutes wherein it assumes the different mechanisms in accordance...

  • Court Action 10/08/12.  // CT Reports;10/8/2012, p1 

    The article presents information regarding the Vringo Infrastructure Inc. that filed a lawsuit against the Great Britain subsidiary of ZTE Corp., China, for patent infringement. It mentions that the ZTE Corp. has manufactured and sold devices that were related to Vringo's portfolio. It mentions...

  • Groundless threats of proceedings for IP infringement: an introduction to and critique of the statutory provisions. Schwartz, Gina; Gardner, Michael // Communications Law: Journal of Computer, Media & Telecommunicati;2006, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p85 

    The article discusses the groundless threats provisions, an entitlement which allows any person prejudiced by an unjustifiable threat of proceedings for infringement of certain intellectual property to bring back a claim or counterclaim against the party who made the threat. It can be applied to...

  • What's Growing On in COURT JUDGMENTS.  // American Nurseryman;7/15/2005, Vol. 202 Issue 2, p12 

    Reports that the Federal District Court in Chicago, Illinois, has ruled in favor of Aquascape Designs Inc. for a patent infringement suit filed by the company against Stoney Creek Fisheries and Equipment Co. and Aspen Valley Landscape Supply Inc.

  • Public interest and pharmaceutical preliminary injunctions in Hungary. Tálas, József; Szakács, Eszter // Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice;May2013, Vol. 8 Issue 5, p341 

    The Metropolitan Court and Appeal Court have rejected a request for preliminary injunction in a pharmaceutical patent case solely on the grounds of protecting the interests of patients taking the infringing medicine.

  • Dutch Supreme Court Tripp Trapp children's chair cases. Koenraad, Hidde // Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice;Dec2013, Vol. 8 Issue 12, p909 

    In three infringement cases, the Dutch Supreme Court (DSC) delivered judgments with significant implications for the (assumed) European harmonization of the copyright protection criteria for works of applied arts. Further, in the Hauck case, the DSC referred questions to the Court of Justice of...

  • Rare Relief. SEIDENBERG, STEVEN // InsideCounsel;Sep2013, Vol. 24 Issue 261, p16 

    The article discusses the ruling of the International Trade Commission (ITC) to stop the import of products that infringe standard-essential patents in the U.S. It discusses the decision of the ITC on the five popular models of iPhones and iPads from computer company Apple that infringed a...

  • Indirect Infringement of a Patent. Fišer-Šobot, Sandra // Novi Sad Faculty of Law - Collected Papers;2010, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p397 

    No abstract available.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics