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 67

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


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


Contractual duty to deal does not equal antitrust duty to deal
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2014

Addressing for the first time whether a patent holder under a contractual duty to deal is also subject to an antitrust duty to deal, the U. S. Court


“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


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 antitrust challenge
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2015

In a class action case assessing the implications of antitrust law in a patent infringement and validity settlement agreement, the Supreme Court of


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


A no-AG settlement agreement is subject to Actavis’ rule of reason analysis
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 30 2015

Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of the brand-name drug Lamictal (lamotrigine), sued Lamictal’s producer, SmithKline Beecham Corporation (SmithKline


Allegations of antitrust and patent misuse surviving a motion to dismiss
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 30 2015

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey was tasked with determining whether allegations in Defendants’ antitrust and patent misuse


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