Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
1. The objective of this study was to trace a worldwide frame of the current state of the anticompetitive use of judicial actions in defense of intellectual property, also known as Sham Litigation. Sham litigation has been object of controversy, as it opposes connects the exercise of allegedly legitimate rights to the idea of abuse on its uses, meaning (in economic terms) a strategic use with the objective of harming or excluding a rival from the market. A good and pioneer possible tentative definition for sham litigation in on a strict economic perspective is a predatory or fraudulent litigation with anticompetitive effect, i.e., the improper use of the courts and other government adjudicative or granting processes against rivals to achieve anticompetitive ends. We suggest that the anticompetitive use of judicial actions to unduly protect intellectual property might be considered one type of non-price predation strategies. Hence, the economic tools developed to identify this kind of practice can be useful here, too.
(2011)
  • Lucia Helena Salgado, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  • Rafael Morais, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Abstract
This article critically examines aspects of the recent decision in the Act of Concentration that has approved with restrictions the purchase of Sadia by Perdigão, upholding the Brasil Foods creation – and its unfolding. During the decision-making process in CADE, was sometimes mentioned as being an applicable precedent decision of CADE who approved the Act of concentration on the buying of the Kolynos by Colgate, in 9/18/1996. The goal of this article is twofold: point technical fails in the decision-making process and on the merits of the case Sadia-Perdigão; and demystify any possible association between this and the case Colgate-Kolynos.
Keywords
  • antitrust law and economics
Disciplines
Publication Date
Spring November, 2011
Citation Information
Lucia Helena Salgado and Rafael Morais. "1. The objective of this study was to trace a worldwide frame of the current state of the anticompetitive use of judicial actions in defense of intellectual property, also known as Sham Litigation. Sham litigation has been object of controversy, as it opposes connects the exercise of allegedly legitimate rights to the idea of abuse on its uses, meaning (in economic terms) a strategic use with the objective of harming or excluding a rival from the market. A good and pioneer possible tentative definition for sham litigation in on a strict economic perspective is a predatory or fraudulent litigation with anticompetitive effect, i.e., the improper use of the courts and other government adjudicative or granting processes against rivals to achieve anticompetitive ends. We suggest that the anticompetitive use of judicial actions to unduly protect intellectual property might be considered one type of non-price predation strategies. Hence, the economic tools developed to identify this kind of practice can be useful here, too." (2011)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lucia_salgado/21/