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 352

To be or not to be: That is the question for Illinois brick in Apple v. Pepper
  • Hausfeld LLP
  • USA
  • August 16 2018

On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted Apple's petition for certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Pepper,1 appealing the Ninth Circuit's decision

Apple signals it will seek Supreme Court reversal on e-book decision
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2015

Earlier this month, Apple signaled its intention to petition for writ of certiorari after the Second Circuit upheld Judge Cote's decision to apply

Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of alleged hub-and-spoke MAP conspiracy
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • September 29 2015

In a decision some may view as creating a Circuit split with the Second Circuit's recent e-Books decision, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the

March madness for foreign companies: Supreme Court asked to resolve circuit split on reach of FTAIA
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • March 20 2015

The Supreme Court has been urged to resolve a circuit split concerning the reach of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) to foreign

Supreme Court rules that reverse-payment patent litigation settlements are subject to judicial review under the antitrust rule of reason
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • August 19 2013

On June 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court opinions when it held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc

Supreme Court holds reverse payment settlements potentially anticompetitive further guidance awaits
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • June 29 2013

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, a case with the potential to have far-reaching effects both within the

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Supreme Court rules that reverse payment patent settlements may violate antitrust laws
  • Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2013

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will have far reaching effects on the pharmaceutical industry and

FTC v. Actavis: what does it mean for reverse-payment settlements?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2013

On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of

Supreme Court deals blow to reverse payment settlements
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • June 18 2013

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that "large unexplained" reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements, even if within the "scope of the

Supreme Court to decide whether parens patriae suits can be removed under Class Action Fairness Act
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • May 28 2013

We've blogged before about whether parens patriae lawsuits filed by state attorneys' general to recover money on behalf of state citizens can be