In this comment to ITC Investigation 337-TA-745 (Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Motorola v. Apple) we, as teachers and scholars of economics, antitrust and intellectual property, remedies, administrative, and international intellectual property law, former Department of Justice lawyers and chief economists, a former executive official at the Patent and Trademark Office, a former counsel at the ITC Office of the General Counsel, and a former Member of the President’s Council of Economic Adviser take the position that ITC exclusion orders generally should not be granted under § 1337(d)(1) on the basis of patents subject to obligations to license on “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) terms. Doing so would undermine the significant pro-competitive and pro-consumer benefits that RAND promises produce and the investments they enable. A possible exception may arise if district court jurisdiction is lacking, the patent is valid and infringed, and the public interest favors issuing an exclusion order. We explain our position in the comment.
Colleen Chien, Richard J. Gilbert, Carl Shapiro, Thomas F. Cotter, Stefania Fusco, Shubha Ghosh, Eric Goldman, Dan L. Burk, Daniel R. Cahoy, Michael A. Carrier, Jorge L. Contreras, Joseph Scott Miller, Michael Risch, Jason Schultz, Ted M. Sichelman, Arti K. Rai, Katherine J. Strandburg, Esther Van Zimmerman, and Christal Sheppard,
Rand Patents and Exclusion Orders: Submission of 19 Economics and Law Professors to the International Trade Commission
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/435