We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 11

Supreme Court rejects single entity treatment for the National Football League's licensing activities

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2010

On May 24, 2010, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that because the 32 teams of the NFL are independent centers of decision-making and could potentially compete with each other for the licensing of their separate intellectual property, “the NFL’s licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.”

FTC gets shut down - once again - in its bid to change how courts view reverse payment settlements

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 3 2010

As previously reported on this blog, in January 2009, the Federal Trade Commission launched its latest challenge to the legality of reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical industry, this time directed at two settlements involving the brand-name drug AndroGel

Supreme Court weighs single entity treatment for pro sports leagues

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 17 2010

On January 13, 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in American Needle v. National Football League, Case No. 08-661, which concerns whether the teams belonging to the National Football League should be treated as a single entity or as 32 independent entities for antitrust purposes

Where there is an "at-will," there is a way

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 17 2010

A market share discount engaged in by an alleged monopolist, coupled with a new product innovation that was not compatible with competitor's products, passes Sherman Act scrutiny

The latest advance in the debate over reverse payment settlements: will the Supreme Court punt, again?

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2009

On April 24, 2009, a group of professors of law, economics and business, together with the American Antitrust Institute, the Public Patent Foundation, and AARP (collectively "amici") filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Cirpoflaxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Cipro"

Consumers lack standing to sue patent owner for alleged anticompetitive licensing practices directed to its licensees that purportedly resulted in higher prices to consumers

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 13 2009

On March 3, 2009, the District Court for the Southern District of California granted for lack of standing Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss federal and state antitrust and unfair competition law claims brought against Qualcomm by an end consumer alleging that Qualcomm’s anticompetitive licensing practices resulted in higher prices of a particular type of GSM-based cellular device technology that plaintiff purchased

Braintree Labs v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 12 2008

In a July 31, 2008 decision, the District Court of Delaware rejected antitrust and unjust enrichment claims by a generic drug manufacturer for failing to satisfy the “sham litigation” exception to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine

D.C. Circuit overturns FTC Rambus decision

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 7 2008

There has been an important decision in the antitrust litigation against Rambus for failing to disclose patents to JEDEC, a standard setting body (SSO

D.C. Circuit overturns FTC Rambus decision

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 7 2008

The antitrust litigation against Rambus for failing to disclose patents to JEDEC, a standard setting body (SSO), took another twist last week

FTC finds patent holder's refusal to honor licensing agreements on technology adopted by Standard Setting Organization unlawful

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 7 2008

Businesses that participate in Standard Setting Organizations ("SSOs") and seek adoption of their technologies in standards now arguably face additional exposures