STUDY ON THE ANTI-COMPETITIVE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: SHAM LITIGATION Coordination 1 Lucia Helena Salgado Graziela Ferrero Zucoloto Principal Consultor Denis Borges Barbosa Assistants Ana Beatriz Barbosa Patrícia Porto Letícia Klotz Silva 1 We thanks Rafael Pinho Senra de Morais for very helpful comments. Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 FIRST QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3 A complex equ ation................................................................................................................................................................ 5 A sham issue .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 USA and EU: a vexatious proximity.................................................................................................................................. 10 A unn ee ded multiplicity.................................................................................................................................................................... 10 An initial definition .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 The singular iss ue of IP abuse of petition............................................................................................................................... 12 THE PRESENT RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 An initial research grid ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 The response of the various foreign agencies ............................................................................................................................ 17 The U.S. Report ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 The Mexican report 23 Suits directed to extend the term of pharmaceutical patents. ............................................................................................. 23 Linkage cases................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Non active elements included in the listings .......................................................................................................................... 24 The Spanish Report........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Resolución TDC de 15 de abril de 1994. Expediente 335/93 Trip y Chevignon........................................................... 25 Resolución TDC de 16 de julio de 1998. Expediente R 315 /98 Wellcome..................................................................... 25 Resolución TDC de 19 de enero de 2000. Expediente R 373 /99 Fertiarbol................................................................... 26 Judicial cases.................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Conclusion of the Spanish cases ............................................................................................................................................... 28 The Korean Report ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Requirements to establish a case of Sham Litigation............................................................................................................ 30 Sham Litigation Cases ................................................................................................................................................................. 31 The data collected through autonomous research ..................................................................................................................... 31 Argentina ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Australia and New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 France................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 South Africa ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Canada.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Chile...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 The Hemisferio Izquierdo case ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Peru....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 The Brazilian case: a special research .................................................................................................................................... 45 Competition Authority - Non IP cases ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Competition authority: The IP Cases ............................................................................................................................................ 48 The automakers case ................................................................................................................................................................... 48 The instructing Authority decision ..................................................................................................................................... 49 The Judging Authority Decision ......................................................................................................................................... 50 The Shop Tour case .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 The decision of the Instructing Authority......................................................................................................................... 51 The decision of the Judging Authority............................................................................................................................... 51 An analysis of Shop Tour ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 A note on the requirement of a subjective intent in Brazilian Competition Law ........................................................... 54 The abuse of procedure in Brazilian Law ............................................................................................................................... 56 The practice of abuse of judicial procedure in IP cases ....................................................................................................... 58 1 This author must thank the extensive research and wording provided by Ana Beatriz Nunes Barbosa, LL.M (NYU), Patrícia Carvalho da Rocha Porto, MSc (in Intellectual Property, BrPTO) and Page Carlos (U. Florida). 1 The Copyright Collecting Agency Cases ........................................................................................................................... 59 The Sanofi Aventis patent extension case ......................................................................................................................... 60 THE SECOND STREAM OF CASES: ANTICOMPETITIVE EXERCISE OF IP RIGHTS ILL ICITLY ACQUIRED................... 62 The status of illicit Acquirement of IP Rights in this study ...................................................................................................... 65 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................................................