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 58

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


FTC takes a broad, "generic" approach to Actavis in Amicus brief
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 22 2013

The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) battle against "reverse-payment" settlements continues. In an amicus brief recently submitted in the case of In


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


Second Circuit dismisses $500m telecom antitrust suit
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 31 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s decision to dismiss Site-Sites.com, Inc.’s $500 million antitrust suit against Verizon Communications and several other telecommunications companies for lack of standing


Walker process standing affirmed for direct purchaser antitrust plaintiffs
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

On interlocutory appeal from a district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed whether a direct-purchaser plaintiff has


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


“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


FTC signals stricter stance on injunctions for FRAND-encumbered patents
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

Highlighting its continued focus on standard-setting processes, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently warned patent holders seeking injunctive


Reverse payment settlements
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

On Monday, a California state court of appeal affirmed a lower court's ruling upholding a "reverse payment" (pay-for-delay) settlement between Bayer (Bayer) AG and Barr Pharmaceuticals (Barr