Skip Page Banner  
Skip Navigation

Tying Arrangements: Practice Under Federal Antitrust, Patent, and Banking Law (No. 39-2nd)

Product Code: CPOR01
$195.00 Print
Add To Cart
Corporate Practice Series Portfolio No. 39-2nd, Tying Arrangements: Practice Under Federal Antitrust, Patent, and Banking Law, explains the requirements necessary to prove that an illegal tie exists and sets out the defenses that may justify a tie in particular situations under §1 of the Sherman Act and §3 of the Clayton Act. The Bank Holding Company Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act—the sources of a significant volume of litigation in this area—are also given extensive consideration. The portfolio points out the recurring problem areas in the tying field and offers suggestions to help corporate counsel navigate their way clear of obstacles.

Portfolio 39-2nd: Tying Arrangements: Practice Under Federal Antitrust, Patent, and Banking Law  


I. Introduction

II. Statutory and Historical Background 
    A. The Rule in a Nutshell 
    B. The Statutory Foundation 
        1. Clayton Act, §3 
        2. Sherman Act, §1 
        3. Federal Trade Commission Act, §5 
        4. Special federal or state anti-tying laws 
        5. State antitrust laws 
    C. The Risk—Treble Damages and Class Actions 
    D. A Short History of Tying Law

III. The Prohibition Against Tying 
    A. Tying as a ‘Per Se’ Offense 
        1. What are the essential elements of a tying violation? 
        2. When are there two different products? 
            a. Pre-Hyde cases 
            b. The Hyde case 
            c. Post-Hyde cases 
            d. The Kodak case 
            e. Post-Kodak cases 
            f. The Microsoft case 
        3. What constitutes a ‘tie’? 
            a. Express tying agreements 
            b. Implied tying arrangements 
            c. Recent decisions on ‘ties’ 
            d. The so-called ‘economic tie’ 
        4. Market power in the tying product 
            a. Hyde's impact on principles of market power 
            b. Kodak's contribution to the issue of market power 
            c. Pre-Hyde rules 
            d. Post-Hyde cases 
            e. Post-Kodak cases 
            f. Queen City Pizza and after 
        5. Foreclosure of the tied product market 
        6. Anti-competitive consequences in the tied market 
        7. Is there a ‘single purchaser’ rule? 
        8. Economic interest in the tied product 
        9. Other required elements 
            a. Antitrust injury 
            b. Standing: Who can sue for a tying arrangement 
            c. Proof of damage 
        10. Defenses to the plaintiff's per se case 
            a. The business necessity defense 
            b. The fledgling industry situation 
    B. Rule-of-Reason Analysis in Tying Cases 
    C. Attempts to Promulgate Governmental Guidelines 
        1. DOJ Vertical Restraint Guidelines 
        2. The NAAG Vertical Restraints Guidelines 
        3. The DOJ Statement on Section 2 of the Sherman Act

IV. Particular Business Practices 
    . Introductory Material 
    A. Package Sales 
        1. Separate availability 
        2. Two-products 
        3. Availability elsewhere 
        4. Business justification 
    B. Service and Maintenance Requirements 
    C. Distribution Practices 
        1. Full-line forcing 
        2. Mandatory stocking and sale of complementary goods 
        3. Mandatory promotions 
    D. Franchising and Licensing of Trademarks 
        1. Two-products issue: Is a franchise a product? 
        2. Market power of the franchisor 
        3. Goodwill considerations 
        4. Requiring the use of an approved source 
        5. Reemergence of class actions in franchise tying suits 
    E. Licensing of Patents and Copyrights 
        1. Does a patent or copyright confer ‘market power’? 
            a. The Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988 
            b. Market power under the DOJ/FTC intellectual property guidelines 
        2. Arrangements involving patents 
            a. Tie-ins under the DOJ/FTC intellectual property guidelines 
            b. Use of nonpatented products 
                i. Patent misuse 
                ii. Contributory infringement 
            c. Mandatory package licensing of patents 
            d. Patent law immunity: The Xerox case 
        3. Packaging wanted and unwanted patents 
        4. Royalties on the sale of unpatented products 
            a. Grant-back provisions 
            b. Extended royalties 
        5. Copyrights 
            a. Block-booking 
            b. Music libraries 
    F. Reciprocal Dealing

V. Special Problems with Respect to Certain Tying Goods 
    A. Insurance Tie-Ins 
    B. Real Estate as a Tying Product 
        1. Land 
        2. Condominiums 
            a. Management contracts 
            b. Recreational leases 
    C. Warranty as a Tying Product

VI. Special Problems for Banks and Other Lending Institutions 
    A. Introduction 
        1. The Bank Holding Company Act 
        2. The Home Owners' Loan Act 
        3. Jurisdiction, damages, and remedies 
    B. Who Is Subject to the Anti-Tying Provisions? 
        1. What is a ‘bank’ or ‘savings association’? 
        2. Who is protected by the anti-tying provisions? 
        3. What transactions are covered? 
    C. Essential Terms and Elements 
        1. What does it mean to ‘extend credit’? 
        2. What does the term ‘condition or requirement’ mean? 
        3. Must a plaintiff prove ‘anti-competitive effects’? 
    D. Exemptions and Safe Harbors 
        1. What is the ‘traditional banking practice’ exemption? 
        2. Can a bank offer a discounted package of services? 
        3. Do the anti-tying statutes reach ‘attempted’ ties? 
    E. Conclusion

VII. A Counselling Summary—Keeping it Legal 
    . Introductory Material 
    A. Package Pricing and Separate Availability 
    B. The Single-Product Characterization 
    C. Antitrust Compliance Programs

Portfolio 39-2nd: Tying Arrangements: Practice Under Federal Antitrust, Patent, and Banking Law 

 
Wks. 1 Excerpts from Federal Statutes Prohibiting Tying Arrangements: Clayton Act §3; Sherman Act §1; Federal Trade Commission Act §5(a)(1) & (2); Bank Holding Company Act §106(b); Home Owners' Loan Act §5(q); Patent Misuse Reform Act §271(d)(5)

Wks. 2 Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States 356 U.S. 1 (1958)

Wks. 3 Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 388 F.2d 25 (7th Cir. 1967), modified, 395 U.S. 100 (1969)

Wks. 4 Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. 394 U.S. 495 (1969) (Fortner I)

Wks. 5 United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc. 429 U.S. 610 (1977) (Fortner II)

Wks. 6 Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde 466 U.S. 2 (1984)

Wks. 7 United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp. 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff'd, 365 U.S. 567 (1961) (per curiam)

Wks. 8 Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 955 (1972)

Wks. 9 Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co. 664 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1982)

Wks. 9A Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted), reh'g en banc denied (by a vote of 7 to 5, Becker, J., dissenting), 129 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Baughans, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, 523 U.S. 1059 (1998)

Wks. 10 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. 504 U.S. 451 (1992)

Wks. 10A Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. 547 U.S. 28 (2006) *

Wks. 11 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Credit and Financial Services

Wks. 12 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Real Estate and Condominium Units

Wks. 13 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Trademarks, Franchises, Patents, and Dealerships

Wks. 14 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Reciprocal Dealing

Wks. 15 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Miscellaneous Goods

Wks. 16 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Miscellaneous Services

Wks. 17 ADJUDICATED TYING CLAIMS BY CATEGORY OF TYING PRODUCTS: Miscellaneous (Other)

Wks. 18 FTC Advisory Opinion Index and Department of Justice Digest of Antitrust Division's Business Review Letters

Wks. 19 Provisions from Representative Franchise Agreements1

Wks. 20 Excerpt From U.S. Department of Justice Vertical Restraint Guidelines

Wks. 21 Excerpt from National Association of Attorneys General Vertical Restraints Guidelines *

William M. Hannay
Schiff Hardin LLP
Chicago, Illinois

William A. Montgomery
Schiff Hardin LLP
Chicago, Illinois