How Could These Proposed Updates Change IP Licensing Guidelines?
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are proposing amendments to Antitrust Guidelines for the licensing of intellectual property. According to the agencies, the IP Licensing Guidelines, which were issued in 1995, should be updated to reflect current statutory and case law.
The Underlying Enforcement Policy
The IP Licensing Guidelines outline the FTC and DOJ’s antitrust enforcement policy with respect to the licensing of intellectual property protected by patent, copyright, and trade secret law. As highlighted in the proposed updates, the agencies may “impose licensing requirements to remedy anticompetitive harm or, in the case of a merger, to prevent the substantial lessening of competition.”
The revised IP Licensing Guidelines also reconfirm that DOJ/FTC enforcement policy is guided by three basic principles:
The agencies apply the same antitrust analysis to conduct involving intellectual property as to conduct involving other forms of property, taking into account the specific characteristics of a particular property right.
The agencies do not presume that intellectual property creates market power.
The agencies recognize that intellectual property licensing allows firms to combine complementary factors of production and is generally procompetitive.
Proposed Changes to the IP Licensing Guidelines
Many of the proposed updates reflect decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In light of the Court’s decision in Verizon Communications v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), the guidelines now state: “The antitrust laws generally do not impose liability upon a firm for a unilateral refusal to assist its competitors, in part because doing so may undermine incentives for investment and innovation.” At the same time, the agencies also advise that although market power does not obligate IP property owners to license their property, the agencies may still impose licensing requirements to remedy anticompetitive harm or to prevent the substantial lessening of competition as the result of a merger.
In accord with the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 551 U.S. 877 (2007), the new guidelines state that “the Agencies will apply a rule of reason analysis to price maintenance in intellectual property licensing agreements.” While the updated IP Guidelines no longer presume that such vertical price restraints are per se anticompetitive, the agencies highlight that the per se rule may still apply to some horizontal pricing arrangements.
The updated guidelines also reflect regulatory changes. Keeping in line with the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, relevant market definition is no longer the mandatory first step in analyzing a license’s competitive impact. However, it is still considered a key factor.
The updated IP Licensing Guidelines have been amended to reflect the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which created a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The proposed changes also incorporate changes to the terms of both patent and copyrights, which occurred just after the guidelines were issued in 1995.
The Bottom Line
Finally, the proposed updates retain the concept of “innovation markets,” but gives them a new name. In a largely semantic change, the guidelines now refer to them as “Research and Development Markets” to more accurately reflect how these markets have been defined in enforcement actions.
As reflected above, the agencies’ updated guidance does not significantly alter their enforcement approach. Accordingly, the updated IP Licensing Guidelines fail to address several important (albeit controversial) issues, including patent infringement suits by non-practicing entities, violations of commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, and pay-for-delay patent settlements.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Fred Zemel, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
DOJ and FTC Propose Updates to IP Licensing Guidelines
Author: Fred D. Zemel
How Could These Proposed Updates Change IP Licensing Guidelines?
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are proposing amendments to Antitrust Guidelines for the licensing of intellectual property. According to the agencies, the IP Licensing Guidelines, which were issued in 1995, should be updated to reflect current statutory and case law.
The Underlying Enforcement Policy
The IP Licensing Guidelines outline the FTC and DOJ’s antitrust enforcement policy with respect to the licensing of intellectual property protected by patent, copyright, and trade secret law. As highlighted in the proposed updates, the agencies may “impose licensing requirements to remedy anticompetitive harm or, in the case of a merger, to prevent the substantial lessening of competition.”
The revised IP Licensing Guidelines also reconfirm that DOJ/FTC enforcement policy is guided by three basic principles:
The agencies apply the same antitrust analysis to conduct involving intellectual property as to conduct involving other forms of property, taking into account the specific characteristics of a particular property right.
The agencies do not presume that intellectual property creates market power.
The agencies recognize that intellectual property licensing allows firms to combine complementary factors of production and is generally procompetitive.
Proposed Changes to the IP Licensing Guidelines
Many of the proposed updates reflect decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In light of the Court’s decision in Verizon Communications v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), the guidelines now state: “The antitrust laws generally do not impose liability upon a firm for a unilateral refusal to assist its competitors, in part because doing so may undermine incentives for investment and innovation.” At the same time, the agencies also advise that although market power does not obligate IP property owners to license their property, the agencies may still impose licensing requirements to remedy anticompetitive harm or to prevent the substantial lessening of competition as the result of a merger.
In accord with the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, 551 U.S. 877 (2007), the new guidelines state that “the Agencies will apply a rule of reason analysis to price maintenance in intellectual property licensing agreements.” While the updated IP Guidelines no longer presume that such vertical price restraints are per se anticompetitive, the agencies highlight that the per se rule may still apply to some horizontal pricing arrangements.
The updated guidelines also reflect regulatory changes. Keeping in line with the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, relevant market definition is no longer the mandatory first step in analyzing a license’s competitive impact. However, it is still considered a key factor.
The updated IP Licensing Guidelines have been amended to reflect the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which created a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The proposed changes also incorporate changes to the terms of both patent and copyrights, which occurred just after the guidelines were issued in 1995.
The Bottom Line
Finally, the proposed updates retain the concept of “innovation markets,” but gives them a new name. In a largely semantic change, the guidelines now refer to them as “Research and Development Markets” to more accurately reflect how these markets have been defined in enforcement actions.
As reflected above, the agencies’ updated guidance does not significantly alter their enforcement approach. Accordingly, the updated IP Licensing Guidelines fail to address several important (albeit controversial) issues, including patent infringement suits by non-practicing entities, violations of commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, and pay-for-delay patent settlements.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Fred Zemel, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
