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 16

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 24 2011

Second Circuit affirms judgment in favor of publisher, holding, as a matter of first impression, that the first sale doctrine does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States

Thayil v. Fox Broadcasting

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 8 2012

District court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint accusing producers of American Idol and other reality competition shows of stealing his ideas and infringing his copyrights, holding that the allegedly stolen elements were not copyrightable, and that plaintiff’s conclusory allegations did not suffice to state a claim

New FTCDOJ position will require heightened regulatory reporting of pharma, biological and diagnostic licenses

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2012

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recently announced revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act’s premerger notification rules to require enhanced reporting of transactions (including licenses) relating to patents of pharmaceutical, biological and diagnostic products

Price restraints no longer per se illegal

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 16 2007

On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court concluded in a 5-4 opinion that arrangements between manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for the resale of products to consumers are not illegal on their face and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

Realnetworks, Inc, et al v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc, et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2010

Court grants motion picture studios’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s antitrust claims arising from studios’ refusal to license plaintiff’s product; court holds plaintiff lacks standing to plead an antitrust claim because it failed to prove that it suffered an anti-competitive injury and failed to plead a plausible antitrust conspiracy

Starr, et al. v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

Second Circuit holds that the plaintiff class adequately pled violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against defendant producers and distributors of digital music, where the defendants’ alleged parallel conduct in selling music over the internet plausibly suggested that defendants entered into an agreement to fix prices and to restrain the availability and distribution of music over the internet

Hart-Scott-Rodino overhaul

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 8 2011

As the latest evidence of increased antitrust enforcement, on July 7 the Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice jointly published sweeping changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino rules

Washington v. National Football League

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 5 2012

District court grants NFL’s motion to dismiss class action filed by former football players alleging that, by not allowing the players the rights to game films and images from the games in which they played, the NFL is monopolizing the market for former players’ likenesses, in violation of antitrust laws

Supreme Court enforces arbitration provision barring merchants from bringing class action antitrust claims against American Express

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2013

The United States Supreme Court has issued a divided (5-3) decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, reaffirming the Court's

Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. v. Bryan

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 15 2010

In copyright infringement action, court allows plaintiff to use defendants’ projected future profits as a factor in its monetary award calculation under 17 U.S.C. 504