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 169

US Supreme Court sets forth standing requirement for Lanham Act Section 43(a) false advertising claims, rejecting requirement of direct competition

  • Kaye Scholer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2014

Significant for litigators and would-be litigants alike, the US Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control

SanDisk sues PAE Round Rock for antitrust violations, breach of contract involving enforcement of former Micron patents

  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2014

SanDisk brought suit against Round Rock Research in the District of Delaware last week, alleging that the patent assertion entity's acquisition and

Antitrust: scrutiny of reverse payment settlements

  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 19 2014

It has been less than a year since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013) (hereinafter “Actavis”

Cash-payment rule needed for pay-for-delay litigation frenzy

  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 13 2014

The fallout from the Supreme Court's decision last Summer in FTC v. Actavis remains unabated as a host of purported classes of direct and indirect

Federal judge limits antitrust scrutiny of pharmaceutical reverse payments to settlements involving monetary transfers

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 7 2014

Recently, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that only patent settlements involving a reverse monetary

Court holds patent infringement may be anticompetitive conduct for antitrust violation

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2014

A jury recently found that an accused patent infringer attempted to monopolize in a case where the alleged anticompetitive conduct included

New Jersey District Court dismisses proposed antitrust class action over LAMICTAL patent settlement

  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2014

On January 24, 2014, the District Court released its reconsideration opinion again dismissing a previously-dismissed proposed antitrust class action

Reverse-payment settlements of ANDA litigation: district court holds money payment required for antitrust liability

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2014

A "reverse-payment" settlement of Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") patent infringement litigation will not trigger potential antitrust

District court holds that under FTC v. Actavis, “pay for delay” means money

  • Kaye Scholer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2014

In one of the first cases to apply the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (June 17, 2013), to a

Pay for delay -- Supreme Court's Actavis decision is limited to monetary payments

  • Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2014

On January 24, 2014, Judge Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissedthe In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust