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 12

Supreme Court holds that "reverse payment" patent settlements are subject to potential antitrust condemnation, but only after full-blown rule of reason review
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2013

In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ____ (Slip Op. June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the underlying antitrust merits of the


Federal Circuit narrows patent misuse doctrine and provides guidance to patent pools
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2010

In January of this year, we alerted clients to the potential implications of Princo Corporation v. International Trade Commission, in which the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, would decide whether an agreement among patent pool participants not to license a competing technology constitutes patent misuse even in the absence of evidence of anticompetitive effects


Sarah Wells
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Robert M. Nichols
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Bradley S. Lui
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Department of Justice will not challenge IEEE’s proposed updates to its standard-setting patent policy
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • February 18 2015

On February 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) announced that it will not challenge a proposed update to the Institute


Sean P. Gates
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Alistair Maughan
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Jeny M. Maier
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP

Joshua A. Hartman
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP