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 77

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


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


FTC and DOJ Update Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 18 2017

On January 13, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued updated Antitrust


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


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


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


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


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


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