Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Competition: 2016, Vol 25, No. 2
Content
- Biometric Privacy Litigation: Is Unique Personally Identifying Information Obtained From a Photograph Biometric Information?
- California Online Privacy Laws: the Battle For Personal Data
- Chair's Column
- "Clear and Conspicuous" Disclosures Between Celebrity Endorsers and Advertisers On Social Media Websites
- Dispatches From the West Coast: Federalism, Competition, and Comments On the United States' Proposed Update To the Antitrust Guidelines For Licensing Intellectual Property
- Editor's Column
- Exceptions To the Rule: Considering the Impact of Non-practicing Entities and Cooperative Regulatory Processes In the Update To the Antitrust Guidelines For the Licensing of Intellectual Property
- Ftc Privacy and Data Security Enforcement and Guidance Under Section 5
- Home Run or Strikeout? the Unsettled Relationship Between the Sports Broadcasting Act and Cable Programming
- Masthead
- Never Say Never: the Ninth Circuit's Misguided Categorical Approach To Individual Damages Questions When Assessing Rule 23(B)(3) Predominance
- The Rapidly Changing Landscape of Private Global Antitrust Litigation: Increasingly Serious Implications For U.S. Practitioners
- Comments On Proposed Update On Intellectual Property Licensing Guidelines
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED UPDATE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING GUIDELINES
By Michael A. Carrier1
I applaud the agencies for updating the Intellectual Property (IP) Licensing Guidelines. I have two general reactions.
First, in these (or supplemental) guidelines, the agencies could consider addressing IP licensing issues related to (1) standard essential patents (SEPs), (2) patent assertion entities (PAEs), and (3) drug patent settlements. Although addressed in agency orders and speeches, each of these topics could benefit from further elaboration in the form of guidelines.
Second, to offer a more nuanced analysis, the agencies in three places could recognize the crucial regulatory and industry context.