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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 76

No competitive injury without intent and action to enter the market
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 28 2015

In a precedential case of first impression interpreting 35 U.S.C. 292 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the new “False Marking Statute,” the U.S


Massachusetts Court Weighs in on Product Hopping Allegations and Reverse Payment Standing
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 11 2016

Addressing a motion to dismiss a bevy of antitrust allegations, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a class of


Sham-wow! antitrust liability may attach to sham administrative petitions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 1 2014

Addressing whether the “sham” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity is limited to sham litigation in courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the


“Reverse payment” settlements subject to greater antitrust scrutiny: implications of Supreme Court FTC v. actavis ruling
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 20 2013

By rejecting the "scope of the patent" test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements "can sometimes violate the antitrust laws," the


Appellate Court weighs in on pharmaceutical “product hopping”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2015

As the first court of appeals to address the issue of product hopping, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s


Split decisions regarding class certification in provigil antitrust lawsuits
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 30 2015

In two antitrust class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court denied class certification as to


Northern District of California Dismisses Claims that Gilead Violated the Antitrust Laws in Seeking to Protect its Position on HIV Drug
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 11 2016

Ruling on a motion to dismiss, the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed AIDS Healthcare's antitrust claims alleging


Supreme Court hears oral argument in pay-for-delay patent settlement antitrust case
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 26 2013

The Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., will almost certainly have major implications for the viability of Federal


“Reverse payment” settlements face greater antitrust scrutiny following U.S. Supreme Court ruling in FTC v. Actavis
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 31 2013

Resolving a split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patent infringement settlement agreements between branded and


Third Circuit extends Actavis to reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of