15 U.S.C. § 4302

Rule of reason standard

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

In any action under the antitrust laws, or under any State law similar to the antitrust laws, the conduct of—(1) any person in making or performing a contract to carry out a joint venture, or(2) a standards development organization while engaged in a standards development activity,shall not be deemed illegal per se; such conduct shall be judged on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition, including, but not limited to, effects on competition in properly defined, relevant research, development, product, process, and service markets. For the purpose of determining a properly defined, relevant market, worldwide capacity shall be considered to the extent that it may be appropriate in the circumstances.(Pub. L. 98–462, § 3, Oct. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1816; Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(d), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 119; Pub. L. 108–237, title I, § 104, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 663.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–237 substituted “of—

“(1) any person in making or performing a contract to carry out a joint venture, or

“(2) a standards development organization while engaged in a standards development activity,

shall” for “of any person in making or performing a contract to carry out a joint venture shall”.

1993—Pub. L. 103–42 substituted “joint venture” for “joint research and development venture” and “, development, product, process, and service” for “and development” and inserted at end “For the purpose of determining a properly defined, relevant market, worldwide capacity shall be considered to the extent that it may be appropriate in the circumstances.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2007–2010 · leading case: Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “31(a), at 14 (2000) (most research joint venture agreements "are procompetitive, and they typically are analyzed under the rule of reason"); ABA, Antitrust Law Developments 445-46 (6th ed.”

Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3rd Cir. 2007). “1931 ; see also Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4302 , 4303 (Supp.2004) (providing that private standard-setting conduct shall not be deemed illegal per se, and insulating such conduct from treble damages); Pub.”

TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 802 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “701 (1948); see also 15 U.S.C. § 4302 (“In any action under the antitrust laws .”

Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm Inc (3rd Cir. 2007). “at 500-01 ; see also Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4302 , 4303 (Supp. 2004) (providing that private standard-setting conduct shall not be deemed illegal per se, and insulating such conduct from treble damages); Pub.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.