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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“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


“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


Northern District of California Dismisses Claims that Gilead Violated the Antitrust Laws in Seeking to Protect its Position on HIV Drug
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 11 2016

Ruling on a motion to dismiss, the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed AIDS Healthcare's antitrust claims alleging