Home >
Practices

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Clients who work in innovative industries need to protect their interests in intangible creations. Courts and policymakers are recognizing the importance of rigorous, empirical economic analysis as a component of intellectual property valuation. Criterion's experience includes expert testimony in commercial litigation and arbitration as well as advisory work in the context of licensing negotiations and due diligence. Criterion experts shape the law and policy of standard-setting arrangements that are crucial to many of the world’s most important and complex technologies. Our experience encompasses pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, semiconductors, software, consumer electronics, industrial machinery, automotive, and other high-technology fields.

We apply these methods in a variety of contexts, including:

  • Damages assessment in patent, copyright, false advertising, and trade secrets disputes
  • Economic analysis of issues attendant to patent litigation, such as antitrust counterclaims, invalidity claims, injunctions, and pre/post-judgment interest calculations
  • Litigation and commercial arbitrations involving breach of contract, territorial restrictions, covenants not to compete, and best efforts
  • Section 337 patent infringement actions before the International Trade Commission
  • Valuation of patents and other forms of intellectual property outside of litigation
  • Valuation of intangible assets for transfer pricing purposes

Representative engagements undertaken by Criterion experts have included:

  • The landmark music file sharing case, Recording Industry Association of America v. Napster, Inc.
  • Landmark standards-setting litigation, including Rambus and Unocal
  • Testimony on behalf of Nichia Corporation, Panasonic Communications Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation, La Cie, Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., and Hitachi America, Ltd. in In the Matter of Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission.

Related Publications:

J. Gregory Sidak & David J. Teece, "Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law," Journal of Competition Law & Economics (forthcoming).

J. Gregory Sidak, "Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books," 5 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 411 (2009), co-authored with Jerry A. Hausman.

J. Gregory Sidak, "Patent Holdup and Oligopsonistic Collusion in Standard Setting Organizations," 5 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 123 (2009).

J. Gregory Sidak, "Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the Presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement: A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro," 92 Minnesota Law Review 713 (2008).

J. Gregory Sidak, "Patent Damages and Real Options: How Judicial Characterization of Non-Infringing Alternatives Reduces Incentives to Innovate," 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 825 (2007), co-authored with Gregory K. Leonard and Jerry A. Hausman.

J. Gregory Sidak & David J. Teece, "Innovation, Investment, and Unbundling," 17 Yale Journal on Regulation 1 (2000), co-authored with Thomas M. Jorde.

J. Gregory Sidak, "Debunking Predatory Innovation," 83 Columbia Law Review 1121 (1983).