Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 148

Northern exposure?

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
-
Canada, USA
-
April 4 2013

Davit Akman and John Norman suggest that a recently commenced investigation into alleged "product switching" and statements by the Interim

Supreme Court to hear androgel reverse payment case

Foley & Lardner LLP
-
USA
-
January 10 2013

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to address whether and when "reverse payment" agreements

Federal Circuit en banc decision limits patent misuse defense

Venable LLP
-
USA
-
September 13 2010

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued an opinion on August 30, 2010 in which a majority held that the equitable doctrine of patent misuse should be only narrowly applied as a defense to infringement charges

Indirect purchaser Plavix class actions tossed for lack of antitrust standing

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
February 18 2011

On January 31, 2011, the District Court for Southern District of Ohio granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing indirect purchaser class actions that challenged proposed reverse payment agreements as anticompetitive under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-2

Second Circuit panel urges reconsideration of precedent on antitrust treatment of patent settlements

Hogan Lovells
-
USA
-
July 16 2010

A panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an unusual move, urged plaintiffs in an antitrust case challenging a so-called "reverse payment" patent settlement to file an en banc petition to the Second Circuit to reconsider its existing precedent concerning such settlements

Federal Circuit narrows patent misuse doctrine and provides guidance to patent pools

Morrison & Foerster LLP
-
USA
-
September 2 2010

In January of this year, we alerted clients to the potential implications of Princo Corporation v. International Trade Commission, in which the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, would decide whether an agreement among patent pool participants not to license a competing technology constitutes patent misuse even in the absence of evidence of anticompetitive effects

En banc Federal Circuit addresses patent misuse

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
September 3 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided agreements between horizontal competitors to license potentially competing, patented technologies exclusively through a patent pool does not support a patent misuse defense

Antitrust causation in Standard Setting Organizations

Baker Botts LLP
-
USA
-
August 31 2010

While Standard Setting Organizations ("SSOs") and the technical standards they promulgate for various industries are essential to the operation of the competitive marketplace, they give rise to unique circumstances that can raise significant competitive concerns

Mitsubishi escalates legal battle with GE over wind turbine patents

Nabarro LLP
-
USA
-
July 13 2010

Mitsubishi filed an antitrust lawsuit against GE at a federal court in Arkansas near where it plans to build a $100m (£69m) wind turbine plant

Federal Circuit decision limits patent misuse and distinguishes it from antitrust

Jones Day
-
USA
-
September 10 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision with significant implications for the doctrine of patent misuse

next >

Search results

Northern exposure?

Supreme Court to hear androgel reverse payment case

Federal Circuit en banc decision limits patent misuse defense

Indirect purchaser Plavix class actions tossed for lack of antitrust standing

Second Circuit panel urges reconsideration of precedent on antitrust treatment of patent settlements

Federal Circuit narrows patent misuse doctrine and provides guidance to patent pools

En banc Federal Circuit addresses patent misuse

Antitrust causation in Standard Setting Organizations

Mitsubishi escalates legal battle with GE over wind turbine patents

Federal Circuit decision limits patent misuse and distinguishes it from antitrust

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea