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 54

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


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


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
  • 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


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 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