cripple competition. The anticompeti-tive effect is already present. “What is required here is an analysis of the extent to which antitrust liability might undermine the encouragement of innovation and disclosure, or the extent to which the patent laws prevent antitrust liability for such exclusionary effects.” Id. Therefore, in line with Valley Drag, we think the proper analysis of antitrust liability requires an examination of: (1) the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent; (2) the extent to which the agreements exceed that scope; and (3) the resulting anticom-petitive effects. Valley Drug, 344 F.3d at 1312. A. The ’743 Patent “A patent shall be presumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. See e.g., Doddridge v. Thompson, 9 Wheat. 469, 22 U.S. 469, 483, 6 L.Ed. 137 (1824) (<HOLDING>); Sure Plus Mfg. Co. v. Kobrin, 719 F.2d 1114,
holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated holding the general rule is that in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary a law affecting substantive rights liabilities and duties is presumed to apply prospectively holding that a patent is presumed valid until the contrary is shown holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment