Monday, July 1, 2019

From Around the Blogs: More on FTC v. Qualcomm; Preliminary Injunctions and Damages in Canada

1.  Forbes's Washington Bytes blog recently published a panel discussion titled No License, No Chips? No Dice: Dissecting Judge Koh's Opinion in FTC v. Qualcomm, moderated by Hal Singer with discussants Doug Melamed, Fiona Scott Morton, and Jonathan Barnett.  This one goes into more depth than many of the op-eds and blog posts I've seen so far, and the four participants present a mix of views.  Highly recommended.

2.  Tim Syrett has published a post on IP Watchdog titled The FTC’s Qualcomm Case Reveals Concerning Divide with DOJ on Patent Hold-Up.  Mr. Syrett finds troubling the current split between the DOJ and FTC regarding whether patent holdup is an antitrust issue, and concludes by stating "that a change in administration has led the DOJ to turn away from a long-held, bipartisan approach plays into the perception that antitrust enforcement is increasingly a political tool. While there may be higher profile examples of the politicization of antitrust enforcement, any step that suggests that a change in administration, not law and economics, will lead to  wholesale departure from existing antitrust policy is troubling."

Taking a decidedly different view of the matter, one would imagine, will be most of the speakers at this September event advertised on IP Watchdog's website (agenda here).

2.  On Sufficient Description, Norman Siebrasse published a post titled Standard for Proving Irreparable Harm Due to Inability to Pay.  The post discusses a recent Canadian decision, Arysta Lifescience North America, LLC v. AgraCity Crop & Nutrition Ltd., in which the court granted a preliminary injunction based in part on a finding of irreparable harm premised on the risk that the defendant, if it were to lose at trial, might be unable to pay the resulting damages award.  The facts of the case are somewhat reminiscent of the Rite-Hite v. Kelley decision in the U.S., in that the defendant's allegedly infringing product competes with a product, sold by the plaintiff, that does not incorporated the patent in suit. For Professor Siebrasse's follow-up post on the damage issue, see here.

And, while I'm at it, I wish my Canadian readers a happy Canada Day today. 

No comments:

Post a Comment