Essentially, companies are assigning their patents to tribes in order to take advantage of the tribes’ sovereign immunity, thus shielding them from the patent review process and potential patent invalidation.  The most recent targets of these lawsuits in the tech industry have been Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.

The method works something like this.  A company files for and is granted a patent.  That patent is assigned by the company to a Native American tribe, meaning the tribe is now the owner of the patent. The tribe then licenses the patent back to the company in exchange for a substantial royalty (last month pharmaceutical company Allergan agreed to pay the St Regis Mohawk Tribe $13.5 million up front and a royalty of $15 million annually for its now defunct Restasis patent).  Then, when instructed by the company, the tribe files a lawsuit against a third party (i.e. Apple) for patent infringement.

Normally at this stage (as previously discussed in our Battle of the Copper Pans article), the best course of action for the company being sued would be to attempt to invalidate the patent it is allegedly infringing upon through the USPTO’s inter partes review process (“IPR”).  The IPR occurs before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) rather than in the courts, and is therefore a much more time and cost-effective way to invalidate improperly issued patents.  However, if the owner of the patent is a Native American entity, it has sovereign immunity, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the PTAB.  The company is therefore forced to litigate the infringement claims, which typically lasts over a year, and can result in the defendant companies being enjoined from selling their “infringing products” during such time.

Although defendants are crying foul at this tactic, it seems brilliant for owners who want to ensure their patents are not subject to invalidation proceedings.  However, this trend may not continue for long as we certainly expect to see the defendants of the lawsuits challenge these so-called “sham” transactions and the sovereign status of the tribes.

It is best to have a knowledgeable attorney during all stages of the patent process.  Please email us if you have any questions or if you would like more information regarding the content above.

RUN-DMC’s complaint alleges that the defendants are advertising, manufacturing, selling, and distributing multiple products with the iconic 1980s rap/hip-hop group’s RUN-DMC trademark without the permission of RUN-DMC, which is owned by former band member, Darryl McDaniels. Run-DMC alleges that Amazon directly advertises and sells infringing products, as well as fulfills orders for infringing products sold by third parties who are also named in the lawsuit.

Although this complaint did not layout out an abundance of evidence against Amazon – unlike the complaint by DRTV companies Allstar Marketing Group LLC, Ontel Products Corp., and Ideavillage Products Corp. (filed just three weeks before RUN-DMC’s complaint) – the key is that, similar to the DRTV complaint, Amazon is accused of direct infringement, rather than just contributory or vicarious infringement claims, which Amazon has been able to successfully avoid liability for in the past.

In addition to troubles in the U.S., Amazon has agreed to pay $1.1 million Canadian in penalties and costs to the Canadian Competition Bureau to settle a matter regarding its pricing practices. The fine comes after a two-year investigation into list prices on Amazon’s Canadian site, Amazon.ca. According to the Competition Bureau, “Amazon often compared its prices to a regular price – or ‘list price’ – signaling attractive savings for consumers.” The Bureau concluded that these claims created the impression that prices for items offered on Amazon.ca were lower than usual market prices, even though they may not have been. The investigation found that Amazon relied on its suppliers to provide list prices and did not verify that those prices were accurate. The savings claims at issue were not only advertised on Amazon.ca, but were also e-mailed to customers and displayed in online ads.

Amazon has since made changes to these anticompetitive practices in Canada and now validates list prices provided by suppliers on the Canadian platform. According the Bureau, new practices have also been applied to Amazon.com, which was engaging in the same behaviors as its Canadian counterpart. Although unclear as to when exactly the plan to change this practice was set in motion, in May 2016, former general counsel of the U.S. Senate’s antitrust subcommittee, Seth Bloom, stated that he had not heard anything said about how Amazon was harming consumers (which is a necessary element in the test for antitrust violations). Just a few months later, amidst antitrust probes in Japan and Europe, Amazon hired Bloom to lobby on its behalf.

Although not insignificant, a million-dollar payout is just a drop in the bucket for the online behemoth, which has a market value of approximately $250 billion. The point, however, is that many more drops in the bucket could add up as an increasing number of lawsuits continue to be filed by similarly harmed marketers. In spite of these issues, marketers, distributors, and consumers alike love Amazon’s convenience, free shipping for Prime customers, and simple return policies. The point is not to take down Amazon with fines and lawsuits, but rather, persuade Amazon into changing its illegal and deceptive practices. The more product owners and governments take action against Amazon’s egregious counterfeit and knockoff goods problem and deceptive practices, the more likely Amazon will be forced to reform.

As always, stay tuned to this space for updates.

The guidelines provide direction on antitrust issues that may arise when licensing intellectual property. The proposed updates to the guidelines embrace three general principles:

1. “For the purpose of antitrust analysis, the Agencies apply the same 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.”
2. “The Agencies do not presume that intellectual property creates market power in the antitrust context.”
3. “The Agencies recognize that intellectual property licensing allows firms to combine complementary factors of production and is generally pro-competitive.”

With those principles in mind, the guidelines remain largely unchanged. Below is a summary of two areas that underwent a great deal of redlining, whether changing or affirming the rules due to recent developments.

Intellectual Property and Market Power

The agencies have reiterated in the revised guidelines – including in the principles above – that intellectual property ownership does not create a presumption of market power. Section 2.2 states “market power (or even a monopoly) that is solely ‘a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident’ does not violate the antitrust laws.”

This reflects the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink Inc., in which the court held that a patent does not necessarily confer market power on the patentee, and is good news for intellectual property owners. For example, you can own a great deal of patents in – let’s say – kitchen products, but without a showing of more, such as anticompetitive behavior, there is no presumption of market power and thus no prima facie case for antitrust violations.

Section 3.2 goes on to address market power and licensing agreements. As stated in the guidelines, licensing arrangements still raise anticompetitive concerns if they are likely to have an adverse effect on product prices and quality, for example. The proposed revisions add that if a licensing agreement appears to have anticompetitive effects, the FTC and DOJ normally will identify the effected markets and will typically analyze the competitive effects within the relevant market(s).

So, unlike above where mere ownership of intellectual property does not create a presumption of market power, it appears that a licensing arrangement for all of those patents in kitchen products may more quickly garner the attention and scrutiny of the agencies.

Resale Price Maintenance

The most notable change, perhaps, comes in the area of resale price maintenance. Minimum resale price maintenance usually refers to a pricing arrangement whereby a manufacturer requires resellers to sell at or above a certain price point. The same principle applies to intellectual property licensing agreements when the property owner conditions the license on a particular minimum resale price. The 1995 Guidelines stipulate that it is, per se, illegal for a licensor of intellectual property to fix a licensee’s resale price. However, due to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. rejecting the per se analysis, the proposed guidelines now apply a rule of reason analysis to be applied on a case-by-case basis to weigh the competitive benefits against the harms of the agreement.

For more information on the proposed changes to the guidelines, see the redline copy, which can be found here. The deadline for public comment is September 26.

Those of us in the consumer products industry are either directly or indirectly aware of the problems Amazon poses to brand integrity and consumer protection. It is impossible to prevent counterfeit products from being sold on the platform, and, perhaps even more frustrating, Amazon is making it exceedingly difficult to remove those counterfeit listings and stop repeat offenders. In many cases, before Amazon will remove a listing, the product owner is required to purchase the knockoff and prove to Amazon, via photos, that the goods are fake. And, of course, Amazon takes its percentage on that sale. Outrageous, right?

Not only do counterfeit goods sold on Amazon harm the product owner in the way of lost sales, but brand integrity suffers as well. Because the infringer can get away with using product copyrights and trademarks to sell counterfeit goods, the consumer believes she is ordering the real deal. In turn, when the consumer receives the product and it breaks, or does not perform as advertised, that consumer leaves a poor review, which the product owner then cannot remove from Amazon. It’s a nasty cycle that, as many product owners can attest to, Amazon seems to have no interest in remedying. And honestly, why would it? The courts have held, including most recently in Milo & Gabby, that Amazon is not liable for the infringement of third-party sellers on its platform. What’s the possible solution for product owners (and ultimately, consumers)? Enter, Donald Trump.

As he does with so many, the Donald has been spatting with Amazon owner Jeff Bezos via Twitter and on the campaign trail. Trump claims that Bezos is concerned that if he wins the election, Trump will go after Amazon for its “huge antitrust problem.” According to Trump, it is for this reason that Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, has 20 staffers digging for dirt on the presidential candidate. While many others are also doing their best to prevent a Trump presidency for various reasons, could Trump be right about Bezos’ motivation?

Antitrust laws promote competition and protect consumers from predatory business practices. Seth Bloom, former general counsel of the U.S. Senate’s Antitrust subcommittee, recently stated that because there needs to be some illegal behavior and not just a large market share, “The test … is whether the conduct of Amazon is benefiting or harming consumers.” He went on to say that he hasn’t heard anything said about how Amazon is harming consumers. Well, apparently Bloom has not ordered a counterfeit food chopper that arrives broken, or counterfeit skin care products that cause severe allergic reactions. If he had, he would know that consumers are being harmed and that Amazon’s brand protection department is well aware of it.

These practices could spell trouble for Amazon should the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice start poking around. So, perhaps being called out by Trump — and (hopefully) other high profile individuals/companies — will put some pressure on Amazon to come to the table and address some of these issues in order to … err … make Amazon great again.

Jessica M. Pfau is a partner at Phillips & Pfau LLP. She can be reached via e-mail at 

Jessica@DigitalLawGroup.com