United States: Antitrust Agency Insights: Developments At The Us Antitrust Enforcement Agencies—October 2018

Successfully navigating antitrust agency investigations requires a familiarity with Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission processes, as well as insight into those agencies and their leaderships' current priorities for enforcement and competition policy. This newsletter will provide periodic updates on both, offering an analytical look at how the antitrust agencies are approaching important competition issues and what current investigations may mean for potential future enforcement. We hope our experience—both inside and outside these agencies—will provide insights that help you make more informed decisions for your business.

Letter from the Editors: Key Agency News and Analysis

Recent Speeches Outline DOJ's Approach to Antitrust and IP Policy, Merger Review Reforms

Since his September 2017 confirmation as head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim has spoken repeatedly on both intellectual property and the merger review process. The past month brought two particularly noteworthy speeches on these topics.

1. DOJ's "New Madison" Approach to Antitrust and IP

On September 18, 2018, AAG Delrahim delivered a speech entitled "Antitrust Law and Patent Licensing in the New Wild West" at the IAM Patent Licensing Conference in San Francisco, California. AAG Delrahim's remarks were the latest articulation by DOJ leadership of its "New Madison" approach to antitrust and intellectual property law, which seeks to "achieve a greater degree of symmetry between the dueling concerns of 'hold up' by patent holders and 'hold out' by patent implementers[.]" AAG Delrahim first announced this policy in November 2017, followed by speeches on the topic in March and April 2018.

A key tenet of AAG Delrahim's "New Madison" approach is that antitrust law should not be used to enforce FRAND licensing commitments made by SEP-holders to standard-setting organizations (SSOs). He bases this conclusion on the following premises:

  • Not All Exclusionary Conduct Is Condemned by the Antitrust Laws. AAG Delrahim stated that the standard-setting process inherently involves "exclusionary conduct" because it selects a single "winning" technology, and that such "exclusionary conduct" is pro-competitive because it results in unification around a single standard.
  • A FRAND Commitment in the Standard-Setting Process Does Not Create an Antitrust Duty to License. AAG Delrahim argues that a FRAND commitment may create contract-based licensing limitations, but that the Sherman Act does not create an obligation to price one's products on either fair or nondiscriminatory terms nor does it require that courts act as "central planners" and determine "reasonable" licensing rates.
  • The Risk of False Positives Is Great and Would Suppress Procompetitive Conduct. AAG Delrahim believes that given the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of FRAND, subjecting patent holders to antitrust liability for violation of a FRAND commitment could create a risk of "false positives" and condemn procompetitive conduct and innovation by patent holders.

AAG Delrahim went further in this September speech than in his previous ones when he stated that antitrust law should not be used to enforce FRAND commitments "even if a patent holder is alleged to have misled or deceived a standard-setting organization with respect to its licensing intentions."1

DOJ's current policy in this area marks a clear departure from its policy under the Obama Administration and appears to reflect potential divergence between the DOJ and FTC enforcement policy; the FTC has an ongoing lawsuit against Qualcomm Inc. alleging that Qualcomm's failure to license on FRAND terms constitutes an antitrust violation. FTC Chairman Joseph Simons appears sensitive to the risk that the DOJ and FTC will be perceived to hold different views on this issue. In a recent speech, he echoed prior statements by AAG Delrahim and stated that potential instances of patent "hold-out" deserve enforcement scrutiny, particularly if associated with collusive behavior by potential licensees. Chairman Simons also stated that he agrees with DOJ that a breach of a FRAND commitment alone (including when that breach includes "a fraudulent promise to abide by a FRAND commitment")2 is not sufficient to prove an antitrust violation unless that breach results in "the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power in a properly defined market, or involve[d] an agreement that unreasonably restrains trade."3 However, Chairman Simons's careful phrasing and the remainder of his comments appear to reflect a continued view that patent "hold up" could cause harm to competition and that a FRAND violation may provide the basis for an antitrust action.4

Given DOJ's recent public statements, the risk of a DOJ investigation solely based on an SEP-holder's failure to license on FRAND terms seems low unless there is evidence of deception related to the existence of patents reading on the standard—as opposed to the patent holder's licensing intentions. The FTC appears be more open to investigating conduct relating to the breach of FRAND commitments. If the conduct at issue includes either unreasonable deception in the standard-setting process or collusion, then either agency will likely consider the conduct worthy of investigation.

2. DOJ's Plan to Update its Merger Review Process

AAG Delrahim announced plans to modify DOJ's merger review process in his "It Takes Two: Modernizing the Merger Review Process" speech at Georgetown University on September 25, 2018. After both noting that the average time required for a merger review has increased over the last several years and discussing the harm that such delay can cause, AAG Delrahim announced a series of DOJ actions designed to speed the DOJ's merger review process with the goal of completing most reviews within six months. These reforms include:

  • Offering Early DOJ Front Office Meetings with the Parties. The DOJ front office will be available to meet with the parties for an introductory meeting to discuss deal rationale and other important facts.
  • Publishing a Model Voluntary Request Letter. By publishing a Model Voluntary Request Letter, the DOJ hopes to give parties a head start in complying with those requests and submitting key materials for the review as early as possible.
  • Instituting a Pull-and-Refile Accountability System. DOJ staff will develop an investigative plan for the pull-and-refile 30-day waiting period to use that time more effectively and put the agency in a position, as appropriate, to close the investigation or issue a narrower Second Request.
  • Publishing a Model Timing Agreement. Much like the FTC's recent action, discussed in our September 24, 2018 newsletter, DOJ will publish a Model Timing Agreement on its website to facilitate negotiation of a timing agreement.
  • Reforming the Model Timing Agreements. In an effort to narrow areas for negotiation with the parties, reduce the burden on the parties complying with a Second Request and facilitate more efficient merger reviews, DOJ's Model Timing Agreement will provide for express limits on the scope and timing of Second Requests in exchange for expeditious production of documents and a more robust discovery process if DOJ challenges the transaction.
  • Ensuring Third Parties Comply with CIDs in a Timely Manner. DOJ will hold third parties to deadlines and specifications outlined in CIDs and bring enforcement actions in federal court to ensure compliance. AAG Delrahim's speech indicates the burden on third parties in merger investigations may increase, especially for important competitors or customers of the merger parties.
  • Improving Coordination with Foreign Competition Authorities for Cross-Border Investigations. Parties should consider aligning review time periods for all relevant jurisdictions for a given transaction and, in response, DOJ will seek to improve coordination with foreign enforcers.
  • Withdrawing the 2011 Remedies Guide. Merger remedy negotiations between the parties and DOJ can add significant time to the merger review process, so DOJ will review its remedies policy to explore ways in which it can shorten the duration of merger reviews. In the meantime, it has withdrawn its 2011 Remedies Guide and, until it develops another remedy policy, will follow the 2004 Policy Guide to Merger Remedies. This is significant primarily because the 2004 Guide is less accepting of behavioral remedies for mergers, particularly for vertical mergers. As AAG Delrahim has previously stated, DOJ currently has a strong preference for structural relief in merger consents.

An efficient and transparent merger review process typically benefits the parties. However, as is the case with the FTC's Model Timing Agreement, parties should carefully consider whether entering into such an agreement (or taking advantage of any other reforms in the DOJ process) would be in their best interest on a deal-by-deal basis.

Additional Agency Updates

Cases and Proceedings

  • DOJ and States Require Divestiture in Proposed CVS-Aetna Merger. On October 10, 2018, DOJ and California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Washington announced they will require Aetna Inc. to divest its Medicare Part D prescription drug plan (PDP) business for individuals to WellCare as a condition of its $69 billion merger with CVS Health Corporation. DOJ found the proposed merger would cause competitive harm in the sale of PDPs to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries under Medicare's Part D programs in 16 Part D regions in the US covering 22 states. DOJ also examined whether the combination of CVS's PBM and retail pharmacy business with Aetna's health insurance business would lessen competition through vertical foreclosure of Aetna's rivals, but found that the combined firm would not be able to profitably raise the cost of CVS's PBM or retail pharmacy services to Aetna's health insurance rivals.

    See the proposed consent decree materials »
  • DOJ Requires Divestiture in Proposed Acquisition of Rockwell Collins by United Technologies. On October 1, 2018, DOJ announced it will require the divestiture of Rockwell Collins's pneumatic ice protection systems and trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators (THSAs) businesses as a condition of United Technologies Corporation's (UTC) $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins. DOJ's complaint alleges UTC and Rockwell Collins are two of only three competitors for the development, manufacture and sale of pneumatic ice protection systems for aircraft and are each other's closest competitors for THSAs for large aircraft.

    See the proposed consent decree materials »
  • DOJ Closes Investigation into Proposed Cigna-Express Scripts Merger. On September 17, 2018, DOJ announced it had closed its six-month investigation into Cigna Corporation's $67 billion proposed acquisition of Express Scripts Holding Co. The DOJ examined whether there would be a substantial lessening of competition in the sale of PBM services or whether the combined firm could increase the cost of PBM services to Cigna's competitors. In both cases, the DOJ found the answer to be "no" because of a limited horizontal competitive overlap between Cigna and Express Scripts for PBM services and existing competition from other large PBMs, some of which are already vertically integrated.

    See the DOJ's closing statement »

Policy

  • US and EU Competition Authority Leadership Meet in Washington, DC. On September 27, 2018, leaders of competition authorities from the US and EU met to discuss substantive and procedural competition policy and cross-border cooperation issues. The meeting included FTC Chairman Simons, DOJ AAG Delrahim, European Commission Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, and their respective senior staffs.

    Read the FTC's press release »

    Read the DOJ's press release »
  • FTC Holds Its First Two Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. The FTC kicked off its "Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century" series of hearings on September 13, 2018 with speakers reviewing the policy landscape of competition and consumer protection, concentration and competitiveness in the US economy, and the regulation of consumer data. The series continued on September 21 with speakers that included Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, former FTC Chairman William Kovacic, and former FTC Bureau of Competition Director (and current head of Arnold & Porter's Global Antitrust group) Debbie Feinstein, discussing the state of US antitrust law and monopsony/buyer power.

    See materials from the September 13 session »

    See materials from the September 21 session »

  • FTC Staff Releases Report on Improving Occupational License Portability. The "Options to Enhance Occupational License Portability" report is part of the FTC's Economic Liberty Task Force initiative and builds on last year's roundtable on the topic. The report reviews legal structures that can be used to improve license portability and offers specific initiatives to reduce the burden on military spouses, many of whom move frequently and are particularly burdened by limits on license portability.

    Read the report »

Arrivals/Departures

  • FTC Chairman Names New Bureau of Competition Deputy Director. Chairman Simons named Gail F. Levine as deputy director for the FTC's Bureau of Competition, effective October 15, 2018. Ms. Levine joins the FTC from Uber Technologies Inc., where she was director of US Competition Law. She previously served as an in-house antitrust lawyer at Verizon and at the FTC as attorney advisor to former Chairman Deborah Majoras, deputy assistant general counsel, and assistant director of the Office of Policy Planning.

    Read the FTC's press release »
  • Christine S. Wilson Sworn in as FTC Commissioner. On September 26, 2018, Christine S. Wilson was sworn in as FTC Commissioner, filling the seat vacated by former Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen (see next bullet). Commissioner Wilson, whose term expires on September 25, 2025, previously served as chief of staff to former FTC Chairman Tim Muris. She joined the FTC from Delta Air Lines, where she served as Senior Vice President— Legal, Regulatory & International.

    Read the FTC's press release »
  • Commissioner Ohlhausen Departs the FTC. At the expiration of her term on September 25, 2018, Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen announced her departure from the agency having served on the Commission since April 4, 2012 and as acting Chairman from January 25, 2017 to May 1, 2018. Commissioner Ohlhausen previously served the FTC in various capacities, including as the agency's director of the Office of Policy Planning.

    Read the FTC's press release »
  • AAG Delrahim Announces Acting DAAG for Economics. AAG Delrahim announced that Jeffrey Wilder, an economist and assistant section chief at the DOJ, will serve as Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics. Dr. Wilder fills the position left vacant after former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Luke Froeb left the DOJ for Vanderbilt University in June.
  • DOJ Appoints New DAAG and Counsel to the AAG. On September 17, 2018, DOJ announced the appointment of two new members of its front office: Michael Murray as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Lauren Willard as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Murray previously served as the DOJ's Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Ms. Willard joins the DOJ from private practice.

    Read the DOJ's press release »

Speeches

  • FTC Chairman Speaks at Georgetown Law Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium. In a speech delivered at the Georgetown Law Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium on September 25, 2018, Chairman Joseph Simons described the following five factors that will influence his case selection at the FTC: (1) whether the conduct poses a substantial threat to consumers; (2) whether the conduct involves an economically significant sector; (3) whether the FTC's experience will allow it to make an impact quickly and efficiently; (4) whether the conduct presents a legal issue that would benefit from further study and potentially affect antitrust jurisprudence; and (5) whether the case involves unilateral conduct by dominant firms in industries with substantial network effects, where the conduct may impede entry or fringe expansion. With respect to this fifth factor in particular, he noted interest in mergers of high-tech platforms and nascent competitors. Chairman Simons also discussed his views on how the antitrust law applies to violations of a patent holder's commitments to license SEPs on FRAND terms (as discussed above).

    Read the speech »
  • AAG Speaks at Fordham Competition Law Institute Conference. AAG Makan Delrahim discussed international antitrust enforcement and cooperation in his "'Come Together': Victories and New Challenges for the International Antitrust Community" speech at the Fordham Competition Law Institute Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy on September 6, 2018.

    Read the speech »

Footnotes

1 On its face, this view appears inconsistent with prior FTC enforcement actions, which challenged patent holders' deceptive actions in the SSO context as violations of the antitrust laws. See, e.g., In re Rambus, Inc., No. 9302, 2006 WL 2330117 (FTC Aug. 2, 2006), rev'd, 522 F.3d 456 (DC Cir. 2008); In re Union Oil Co. of Cal., 138 FTC 1 (FTC July 6, 2004); In re Dell, 121 FTC 616 (1996); Statement of the Fed. Trade Comm'n, In re Negotiated Data Solutions LLC, No. C-4234 (FTC Jan. 23, 2008). However, a footnote in his written remarks acknowledges that AAG Delrahim would consider "unreasonable deception of an SSO, such as willfully failing to disclose patents that read on a technology . . . , or intentionally misstating the capabilities of a technology itself . . ." that "caused the SSO to select a different technology, increased the patent-holder's market power, and caused harm to competition" to be a violation of the antitrust laws. This footnote focuses on deception with regard to the technology itself, but does not walk back from the notion that deception with regard to licensing intentions—i.e., a FRAND commitment— is not susceptible to challenge under the antitrust laws.

2 See Joseph Simons, Chairman, Fed. Trade Comm'n., Remarks at Georgetown Law Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium (Sept. 25, 2018).

3 Id. Simons' explanation essentially restates the fundamental principle that challenged conduct must generate antitrust harm to make out an antitrust violation.

4 Id. ("But we also believe that hold-up raises potential antitrust issues, as well. Whether hold-up or hold-out is more likely to occur in the real world is not something we are focused on. If either one occurs, it can be problematic. I want to make clear that the FTC will continue our economically grounded and fact-based enforcement of the antitrust laws in this area.").

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
McDermott Will & Emery
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
McDermott Will & Emery
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions