The California Supreme Court earlier this month issued an opinion that subjects litigants who settle their patent disputes to scrutiny under state antitrust law. The court reasoned that such settlements may create unreasonable restraints on trade. While the decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II to reinstate antitrust claims was not overly surprising—after all, the U.S. Supreme Court had previously held in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. that some patent litigation settlements might violate federal antitrust law—the breadth of the California Supreme Court’s decision could have a particularly negative impact on the free-enterprise system. Indeed, the decision suggests that parties to a patent litigation settlement will have great difficulty ever avoiding California antitrust liability if the settlement entails transferring anything of value from the patent holder to the alleged infringer. Because Cipro’s new state-law antitrust standard is so much more exacting than the standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Actavis, federal antitrust law may well trump California’s standard. Indeed, were Cipro to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court likely would reverse on federal preemption grounds.
“Reverse-Payment” Patent Settlements
When parties to litigation enter into a settlement, one would normally expect that any cash payments would flow from the defendant to the plaintiff. The normal expectations have been reversed in the context of litigation involving prescription-drug patents, however, as a result of financial incentives created by the Hatch-Waxman Act, a federal statute designed to ensure that generic versions of prescription drugs enter the market more quickly. The Act includes a provision that permits generic companies, by declaring to the Food and Drug Administration a belief that the patent held by a brand-name drug company is invalid, to essentially force the patentee to immediately file a patent infringement suit. It also grants huge financial awards to generic companies that successfully challenge drug patents. Continue reading
Science and Federal Regulation: Is the Office of Management and Budget an Effective Gatekeeper?
WLF Media Briefing, Tuesday, May 19, 10:00-11:00 a.m. EDT
Location: 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (WLF headquarters)—RSVP to email@example.com or click HERE for free registration to view program live online
The government of Venezuela has become a notorious abuser of private property rights, seizing the property of corporations and political opponents without offering any compensation. Unable to obtain redress in Venezuelan courts, property owners with increasing frequency have turned to U.S. courts for compensation. The U.S. Court of Appelas for the Eleventh and D.C. Circuits issued nearly simultaneous decisions earlier this month in suits filed by property owners against Venezuela. While the courts reached facially inconsistent results—the Eleventh Circuit dismissed one property owner’s claim while the D.C. Circuit allowed the claims of another group of property owners to move forward—the two courts sent a similar message. Both courts made clear that while they are reluctant to inquire into the validity of a foreign sovereign’s internal conduct, such judicial restraint does not prevent courts from protecting Americans’ rights when property is taken in clear violation of international law.
Any effort to sue a foreign sovereign in a U.S. court faces a major obstacle: the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court has held that the FSIA is the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts. The statute states explicitly that a foreign state is absolutely immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless a specific FSIA statutory exemption is applicable. The only exemption potentially available to those whose property has been confiscated is 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), which denies immunity in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” The Eleventh and D.C. Circuits agreed that the availability of the § 1605(a)(3) exemption depends to a large extent on whether the plaintiff is a citizen of the foreign state; if so, federal courts are far less willing to exercise jurisdiction. Continue reading
This video explains why Laura and Marvin Horne have taken their case that a U.S. Department of Agriculture marketing program violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution all the way to the Supreme Court.
Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in Horne v. USDA supporting the farmers’ argument that the program’s seizure of raisin crops without compensation is an unconstitutional taking. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on April 22. On the afternoon of the argument, WLF held a Web Seminar program assessing the arguments, which featured one of the Hornes’ attorneys, Stephen Schwartz. A video of the program can be viewed here.
Washington Legal Foundation Chief Counsel for Legal Studies Glenn Lammi published a guest commentary on May 4 on the blog of the San Francisco law firm Hinman & Carmichael, Booze Rules. The post, Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban, discusses the implications of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling, Flying Dog Brewing v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission. The court allowed a lawsuit against the Control Commission’s members individually to go forward. Flying Dog is alleging that the commissioners violated its First Amendment rights by arbitrarily rejecting approval to the label of one of the brewery’s products.
On April 24, 2013, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte announced that the committee would be undertaking “a wide review of our nation’s copyright laws and related enforcement mechanisms.” Five months later, UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Pamela Samuelson formally requested that the American Law Institute (ALI) prepare a restatement of copyright law. It might seem odd that a prestigious institution like ALI would devote time and resources to restating the “law of copyright” when the U.S. House of Representatives is taking steps to possibly amend the federal Copyright Act. But it is going forward with a Restatement of the Law, Copyright project.
ALI is an organization of academics, lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals that studies various areas of law and prepares treatises that “clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law.” Courts and legislatures look upon ALI’s best-known treatises, such as the Restatement of Contracts, as authoritative summaries of state common law—i.e. legal principles derived from judicial decisions. A review of its current projects, though, suggests that ALI is drifting away from its traditional approach.
Professor Samuelson’s letter stated that an ALI copyright project “could provide an invaluable and timely analysis and framework for other reform efforts that are currently underway.” Further on in the letter she implies a much larger ambition when decrying the “long and contentious process” of passing laws that makes “comprehensive reform of the statute . . . unlikely to happen any time soon”: Lawyers, academics, and judges at ALI, she seems to suggest, are better positioned to bring clarity to the law of copyright than elected officials in Congress. Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving an issue that the Court declined to address twice in the past several years: whether Congress can grant citizens the ability to file lawsuits in situations where those plaintiffs could not otherwise satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
On April 15, a WLF Legal Pulse commentary by WLF Chief Counsel Rich Samp, Supreme Court Has Opportunity to Halt Lawsuits by Uninjured Plaintiffs, explained why the Court should decline the recommendation of the Solicitor General of the U.S., which, at the Court’s invitation, had filed an amicus brief urging the justices to deny review.
Also, soon after the Court sought the views of the Solicitor General, WLF hosted a Web Seminar program on Spokeo and the issue of statutorily-created injury that featured Spokeo‘s Counsel of Record, Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown LLP, and Meir Feder of Jones Day.