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 69

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


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


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


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


2nd Circuit urges en banc rehearing on pay-for-delay
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that reverse payment settlements of patent infringement lawsuits that keep generic drug manufacturers out of the marketplace do not violate federal antitrust laws


Accused infringer rides antitrust roller coaster
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 30 2015

Addressing antitrust issues in connection with a dismissed patent infringement lawsuit, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a


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


“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


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


A new front in the patent wars: CJEU asked for guidance on limits to injunctive relief
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union, USA
  • April 11 2013

The patent wars between large technology companies continue unabated. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is set to provide guidance on