Tag: Technology

The Commission filed an administrative complaint charging that between 1991 and 1996 Rambus, Inc. joined and participated in the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association (JEDEC), the leading standard-setting industry for computer memory. According to the complaint, while a member of JEDEC, Rambus observed standard-setting work involving technologies which Rambus believed were or could be covered by its patent applications, but failed to disclose this to JEDEC. In 1999 and 2000, after JEDEC had adopted industry-wide standards incorporating the technologies at issue and the industry had become locked in to the use of those technologies, Rambus sought to enforce its patents against companies producing JEDEC-compliant memory, and collected substantial royalties from several producers of DRAM (dynamic random access memory).

The administrative law judge dismissed all charges against Rambus, finding that Rambus’ conduct before the JEDEC standard-setting organization did not amount to deception and did not violate any extrinsic duties, such as a duty of good faith to disclose patents or patent applications. Upon review, the FTC issued an opinion concluding that Rambus unlawfully monopolized markets for four computer memory technologies that have been incorporated into industry standards DRAM chips. The Commission found that, through a course of deceptive conduct, Rambus was able to distort a critical standard-setting process and engage in an anticompetitive “hold up” of the computer memory industry. In a separate opinion on the appropriate remedy, the Commission barred Rambus from making misrepresentations or omissions to standard-setting organizations, and required Rambus to license its SDRAM and DDR SDRAM technology and setting limits to the royalty rates it can collect under the licensing agreements.Tp>

Rambus appealed the Commission’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and in April 2008, the appellate court set aside the Commissions final orders. The Supreme Court denied the Commission's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and on May 14, 2009 the Commission formally dismissed the complaint.

Drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) agreed to pay $2.1 million – the largest fine allowed by law – for failing to inform the FTC of agreements reached with Apotex, Inc., regarding potential generic competition to its blockbuster drug Plavix. BMS’s conduct violated a 2003 FTC Order and the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires that certain drug company agreements be accurately reported to both the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint alleges that BMS failed to disclose that, as part of a patent settlement in which Apotex agreed not to launch its generic version of Plavix for several years, BMS also orally stated, among other things, that it would not compete with Apotex during the first 180 days after Apotex did market its new generic drug.

In November 2008, the Commission issued an administrative complaint charging that the acquisition of CCC Information Services by Mitchell International, a transaction valued at $1.4 billion, would be anticompetitive in the market for “estimatics”, a database system used by auto insurers and repair shops to generate repair estimates for consumers. According to the complaint, the transaction would also harm competition in the market for total loss valuation (TLV) systems, used to inform consumers when their vehicle has been totaled. The transaction would create a new entity with well over half of the market share for these systems, allowing for unilateral price increases, and facilitating coordination among the remaining smaller competitors in the market. The Commission concurrently authorized staff to file a complaint in Federal District Court. On March 9, 2009, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing the parties from consummating the transaction pending a full administrative trial on the merits. On March 13, 2009, since the respondents announced that they decided not to proceed with the proposed merger the Commssion dismissed the Administrative Complaint.

In November 2008, the Commission authorized staff to file a complaint in Federal District Court, charging that the acquisition of CCC Information Services by Mitchell International, a transaction valued at $1.4 billion, would be anticompetitive in the market for “estimatics”, a database system used by auto insurers and repair shops to generate repair estimates for consumers. According to the complaint, the transaction would also harm competition in the market for total loss valuation (TLV) systems, used to inform consumers when their vehicle has been totaled. The transaction would create a new entity with well over half of the market share for these systems, allowing for unilateral price increases, and facilitating coordination among the remaining smaller competitors in the market. The Commission concurrently issued an administrative complaint. On March 9, 2009, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing the parties from consummating the transaction pending a full administrative trial on the merits. On March 13, 2009, since the respondents announced that they decided not to proceed with the proposed merger the Commssion dismissed the Administrative Complaint.

There is a related administrative proceeding.

The Commission charged that Negotiated Data Solutions LLC (N-Data) violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in unfair methods of competition. N-Data acquired patent rights originally held by National Semiconductor Corp. which were included in an IEEE industry standard for autonegotiation technology, which allows Ethernet devices made by different manufacturers to work together. Ethernet is a computer networking standard that is used in nearly every computer sold in the U.S. N-Data reneged on National Semiconductor’s commitment to charge a one-time royalty of $1000 to manufacturers or sellers of products using the IEEE standard, and demanded higher royalties from users. In a consent agreement resolving the charges, N-Data must stop enforcing the patents at issue unless N-Data has first offered a license under the original terms.