Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of a Two-Part Series
While courts generally favor the settlement of intellectual property disputes, these settlements, which often include exclusive licenses, cross-licenses, and pooling arrangements, may implicate antitrust concerns. For example, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opened an antitrust investigation last year into a proposed settlement between Google and a class of authors and publishers in a copyright infringement class action, The Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., Civil No. 1:05-CV-8136 (S.D.N.Y.). The DOJ expressed concern that the settlement restricted price competition among authors and publishers and granted Google de facto exclusive rights over the digital distribution of millions of orphan and rights-uncertain works, effectively precluding other digital distributors from competing with Google. The parties proposed an amended agreement last November, but the DOJ found that the modified agreement continues to raise antitrust concerns by, inter alia, “confer[ring] significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity ' Google ' [as] the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats.” See DOJ, Statement of Interest of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement (Feb. 4, 2010), at 2, available at www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f255000/255012.pdf. As a result, final settlement in the case has been substantially delayed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.